P723D003 Business Case Final Report v2.1

29 Hercules Way

Aerospace Boulevard |||| AeroPark

Farnborough |||| Hampshire |||| GU14 6UU |||| UK

T +44 1252 451 651

F +44 1252 451 652

E [email protected]

W www.askhelios.com

RNAV Approach Benefits Analysis - Final Report

P723D003* HELIOS 1 of 161

Document information

Document title RNAV Approach Benefits Analysis – Final Report

Author Colm Thornton, Nick McFarlane, James Valner, Helios

Aline Troadec (Eurocontrol)

Produced by Helios

29 Hercules Way

Aerospace Boulevard - AeroPark

Farnborough

Hampshire

GU14 6UU

UK

Produced for Eurocontrol

Helios contact Colm Thornton

Tel: +44 1252 451 651

Fax: +44 1252 451 652

Email: [email protected]

Produced under contract T07/11109NG

Version 2.1

Date of release 20th May 2009

Document reference Updated version of P723D003 (P723D003*)


Executive Summary

This study investigates the varying level of benefit of RNAV approach at airports throughout Europe. It is performed by Helios on behalf of Eurocontrol, building upon previous work undertaken in the area, employing a more comprehensive benefits model and taking advantage of two new key elements:

� the participation of several ANSPs/airport authorities;

� the release of the recently developed Minima Estimation Tool (MET), allowing estimation of the potential reduction in operational minima specific at each airport.

Broadly speaking, RNAV approach fills the gap between conventional Non-Precision Approach (NPA) and Precision Approach (PA). When compared to NPAs, RNAV approaches offer various benefits, including guidance to enable Continuous Descent Final Approach (thereby improving safety and reducing environmental impact), removal of the need for circling approaches and a potential reduction in pilot training requirements.

The study focuses upon the benefit of reduced approach operational minima. During periods of poor weather or ILS unavailability at an airport, aircraft can suffer disruptions – delays, diversions or cancellations. RNAV approaches typically offer lower approach minima than conventional NPAs enabling a potential reduction in the number of aircraft disruptions and operational cost savings for the aircraft operator. These cost savings were investigated for 16 different airport case studies throughout Europe with varying traffic levels, aircraft users, weather conditions, surrounding terrain and ILS capabilities.

First, the potential reduction in operational minima enabled by RNAV approach is estimated for each airport case study using the MET tool. Then the resultant potential increase in airport operational capacity is evaluated and correlated with aircraft movements to estimate the avoided disruptions. The subsequent cost savings are calculated for two distinct scenarios with respect to the situation today where RNAV approach is not available:

� Scenario 1: Baro-VNAV approach is implemented and available to all aircraft which are Baro-VNAV capable.

� Scenario 2: Baro-VNAV and SBAS APV I Approaches are implemented and available to all aircraft. Aircraft that are not Baro-VNAV capable are assumed to upgrade to SBAS.

The results of the study show a wide range in the reduction in operational minima for both APV Baro-VNAV and SBAS approaches compared to current NPAs. The minima is seen to vary significantly for individual runway ends at the same airport, as well as across the sample of case study airports. Whilst the variation was large, it was most commonly found that APV BaroVNAV enables a reduction of approximately 70ft with respect to NPA minima while SBAS APV enables an approximate 100ft reduction. However, the reduction in minima varies from 0ft to 320ft (APV Baro-VNAV) and 470ft (SBAS APV I) and the evaluation should be performed on a case-by-case basis.

In terms of resultant cost savings, a similar variation in results is observed. Cost savings range from zero or negligible in some airport case studies, up to €200,000 per year for others.

For airport runways with ILS installed at both runway ends, the cost savings are negligible. The combined probability of an ILS outage together with unsuitable tailwind conditions is typically quite low, and so most aircraft are able to fly an ILS approach incurring few disruptions. Irrespective of the enabled reduction in minima, there is little opportunity to realise any operational benefit as a result.


For airport runways with ILS installed at a single runway end, the cost savings can be significant. From the available sample set, the benefits are seen to fall into 3 benefit bands: zero or negligible benefit, medium benefit (in the region of €40,000 per year) and high benefit (in the region of €200,000 per year). This is dependant upon a number of key factors, with both varying influence and order of precedence at each airport, including:

� airport traffic levels, their daily and seasonal variation (and of course the aircraft approach capabilities);

� number of non-ILS landings at the runway of interest, dependant upon the ILS capability and tailwind strength and variability;

� potential reduction in operational minima enabled by RNAV approach, dependant upon the local terrain environment (and especially significant for NPA runways);

� local weather conditions, such as cloud ceiling and runway visibility, which can greatly affect the realisable benefits.

In some case studies, for example, the dominant factors appear to be overall airport traffic levels and the corresponding number of non-ILS landings, whereas in others the predominance of favourable weather conditions counter balances this. Without any trends between the considered case studies, the actual operational impact of a reduction in minima must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Airports without any ILS capability will derive the greatest benefit. All arriving aircraft will execute an NPA and so be subject to a higher probability of disruption and therefore have greater potential benefit with the introduction of RNAV approaches. The study includes one NPA airport, but it had to be removed owing to the finding of an incomplete obstacle data set in the analysis.

There is some difference observed between the two assessment scenarios. In general, Scenario 2 (APV BaroVNAV and SBAS APV I) demonstrates an additional €20,000 annual cost saving per airport when compared to that of Scenario 1 (solely APV BaroVNAV). The difference at each airport is dependant upon the current aircraft BaroVNAV equipage levels as well as the difference in achievable operational minima between the two capabilities. In this respect, the PANS-OPS documents have a significant impact, restricting APV minima of a PA and NPA runway to 250ft and 300ft respectively. This can limit the potential benefits in certain cases, irrespective of the estimated reduced minima by the MET tool.


Contents

1 Introduction ...................................... ......................................................................... 9

1.1 Overview ..................................................................................................................... 9

1.2 Document structure ..................................................................................................... 9

2 Study overview .................................... .................................................................... 10

2.1 Background information ............................................................................................. 10

2.2 Rationale ................................................................................................................... 10

2.3 Objective ................................................................................................................... 11

2.4 Stakeholder participation ........................................................................................... 11

3 Benefits methodology .............................. ............................................................... 14

3.1 Overview ................................................................................................................... 14

3.2 Total aircraft landings ................................................................................................ 15

3.3 Non-ILS landings ....................................................................................................... 15

3.4 Disruption probability per approach type .................................................................... 18

3.5 Number of disrupted landings .................................................................................... 19

3.6 Total cost savings ...................................................................................................... 21

4 Case study results ................................ ................................................................... 22

4.1 Overview ................................................................................................................... 22

4.2 Analysis results template ........................................................................................... 22

4.3 Geneva (LSGG) analysis results ............................................................................... 23

4.4 Tromso (ENTC) analysis results ................................................................................ 24

4.5 Simferopol (UKFF) analysis results ........................................................................... 25

4.6 Kiev/Borispol (UKBB) analysis results ....................................................................... 26

4.7 Eindhoven Airbase (EHEH) analysis results .............................................................. 27

4.8 Clermont Ferrand (LFLC) analysis results ................................................................. 28

4.9 Bellegarde (LFBL) analysis results ............................................................................ 29

4.10 Biarritz (LFBZ) analysis results .................................................................................. 30

4.11 Lille (LFQQ) analysis results ...................................................................................... 31

4.12 Guipavas (LFRB) analysis results .............................................................................. 32

4.13 Kittila (EFKT) analysis results .................................................................................... 33

4.14 Tampere-Pirkkala (EFTP) analysis results ................................................................. 35

4.15 Rovaniemi (EFRO) analysis results ........................................................................... 36

4.16 Oulu (EFOU) analysis results .................................................................................... 37

4.17 Ivalo (EFIV) analysis results ...................................................................................... 38

5 Study summary and conclusions ..................... ...................................................... 40

5.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 40


5.2 Estimated reduction in decision heights ..................................................................... 40

5.3 Estimated cost savings .............................................................................................. 43

5.4 LPV200 candidates ................................................................................................... 49

A Types of RNAV approach ............................ ............................................................ 51

A.1 Overview ................................................................................................................... 51

A.2 RNP APCH ................................................................................................................ 51

A.3 RNP APCH with Baro-VNAV ..................................................................................... 51

A.4 RNP AR ..................................................................................................................... 51

A.5 SBAS APV ................................................................................................................ 51

B Model information flow ............................ ............................................................... 52

C Guide to following case study annexes ............. .................................................... 54

C.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 54

C.2 Annex structure ......................................................................................................... 54

D LSGG benefits analysis............................. .............................................................. 58

D.1 Overview ................................................................................................................... 58

D.2 Approach minima ...................................................................................................... 59

D.3 Runway usage ........................................................................................................... 59

D.4 Airport accessibility gain ............................................................................................ 60

D.5 Aircraft landings ......................................................................................................... 61

D.6 Estimated cost savings .............................................................................................. 61

E ENTC benefits analysis ............................ ............................................................... 63

E.1 Overview ................................................................................................................... 63

E.2 Approach minima ...................................................................................................... 65

E.3 Runway usage ........................................................................................................... 66

E.4 Airport accessibility gain ............................................................................................ 67

E.5 Aircraft landings ......................................................................................................... 68

E.6 Estimated cost savings .............................................................................................. 68

F UKFF benefits analysis ............................ ............................................................... 69

F.1 Overview ................................................................................................................... 69

F.2 Approach minima ...................................................................................................... 70

F.3 Runway usage ........................................................................................................... 71

F.4 Airport accessibility gain ............................................................................................ 72

5.5 Aircraft landings ......................................................................................................... 73

F.5 Estimated cost savings .............................................................................................. 74

G UKBB benefits analysis ............................ .............................................................. 76


G.1 Overview ................................................................................................................... 76

G.2 Approach minima ...................................................................................................... 77

G.3 Runway usage ........................................................................................................... 78

G.4 Airport accessibility gain ............................................................................................ 79

G.5 Aircraft landings ......................................................................................................... 80

G.6 Estimated cost savings .............................................................................................. 81

H EHEH benefits analysis ............................ ............................................................... 83

H.1 Overview ................................................................................................................... 83

H.2 Approach minima ...................................................................................................... 84

H.3 Runway usage ........................................................................................................... 86

5.6 Airport accessibility gain ............................................................................................ 87

H.4 Runway landings ....................................................................................................... 88

H.5 Estimated cost savings .............................................................................................. 89

I LFLC benefits analysis............................. ............................................................... 90

I.1 Overview ................................................................................................................... 90

I.2 Approach minima ...................................................................................................... 91

I.3 Runway usage ........................................................................................................... 92

I.4 Airport accessibility gain ............................................................................................ 93

I.5 Aircraft landings ......................................................................................................... 94

I.6 Estimated cost savings .............................................................................................. 94

J LFBL benefits analysis............................. ............................................................... 96

J.1 Overview ................................................................................................................... 96

J.2 Approach minima ...................................................................................................... 97

J.3 Runway usage ........................................................................................................... 99

J.4 Airport accessibility gain .......................................................................................... 100

J.5 Aircraft landings ....................................................................................................... 101

J.6 Estimated cost savings ............................................................................................ 101

K LFBZ benefits analysis............................. ............................................................. 103

K.1 Overview ................................................................................................................. 103

K.2 Approach minima .................................................................................................... 104

K.3 Runway usage ......................................................................................................... 105

K.4 Airport accessibility gain .......................................................................................... 106

K.5 Aircraft landings ....................................................................................................... 107

K.6 Estimated cost savings ............................................................................................ 108

L LFQQ benefits analysis ............................ ............................................................. 109

L.1 Overview ................................................................................................................. 109


L.2 Approach minima .................................................................................................... 110

L.3 Runway usage ......................................................................................................... 111

L.4 Airport accessibility gain .......................................................................................... 112

L.5 Aircraft landings ....................................................................................................... 113

L.6 Estimated cost savings ............................................................................................ 113

M LFRB benefits analysis ............................ ............................................................. 115

M.1 Overview ................................................................................................................. 115

M.2 Approach minima .................................................................................................... 116

M.3 Runway usage ......................................................................................................... 117

M.4 Airport accessibility gain .......................................................................................... 118

M.5 Aircraft landings ....................................................................................................... 119

M.6 Estimated cost savings ............................................................................................ 119

N EFKT benefits analysis ............................ ............................................................. 121

N.1 Overview ................................................................................................................. 121

N.2 Approach minima .................................................................................................... 122

N.3 Runway usage ......................................................................................................... 124

5.7 Airport accessibility gain .......................................................................................... 125

N.4 Aircraft landings ....................................................................................................... 127

N.5 Estimated cost savings ............................................................................................ 127

O EFTP benefits analysis ............................ ............................................................. 129

O.1 Overview ................................................................................................................. 129

O.2 Approach minima .................................................................................................... 130

O.3 Runway usage ......................................................................................................... 132

O.4 Airport accessibility gain .......................................................................................... 133

O.5 Aircraft landings ....................................................................................................... 134

O.6 Estimated cost savings ............................................................................................ 135

P EFRO benefits analysis ............................ ............................................................. 137

P.1 Overview ................................................................................................................. 137

P.2 Approach minima .................................................................................................... 138

P.3 Runway usage ......................................................................................................... 140

P.4 Airport accessibility gain .......................................................................................... 141

P.5 Aircraft landings ....................................................................................................... 142

P.6 Estimated cost savings ............................................................................................ 143

Q EFOU benefits analysis ............................ ............................................................. 144

Q.1 Overview ................................................................................................................. 144

Q.2 Approach minima .................................................................................................... 145


Q.3 Runway usage ......................................................................................................... 147

Q.4 Airport accessibility gain .......................................................................................... 148

Q.5 Aircraft landings ....................................................................................................... 149

Q.6 Estimated cost savings ............................................................................................ 150

R EFIV benefits analysis ............................ ............................................................... 151

R.1 Overview ................................................................................................................. 151

R.2 Approach minima .................................................................................................... 152

R.3 Runway usage ......................................................................................................... 153

R.4 Airport accessibility gain .......................................................................................... 154

R.5 Aircraft landings ....................................................................................................... 156

R.6 Estimated cost savings ............................................................................................ 156

S EHAM benefits analysis ............................ ............................................................ 157

S.1 Overview ................................................................................................................. 157

S.2 Approach minima .................................................................................................... 158


1 Introduction

1.1 Overview

This is the final report of the ‘RNAV approach benefits assessment’ study performed by Helios on behalf of Eurocontrol.

The study aims to evaluate the range of potential benefits from RNAV approach implementation throughout Europe, through the investigation of a series of case studies.

The results of the study will support Eurocontrols’ further activities in respect of RNAV approach implementation and provide input to the participating ANSPs/airport authorities as to their individual decisions.

1.2 Document structure

The report contains the following sections:

� Section 1: is this introduction;

� Section 2: sets the background to the study, outlining the rationale and specific objectives of the analysis;

� Section 3: describes the approach used in estimating the benefits;

� Section 4: presents a summary of the benefits analysis for each case study airport;

� Section 5: presents the conclusions and recommendations based upon the analysis results;

� Annex A: provides a reference for the different types of RNAV approach;

� Annex B: provides an overview of the analysis inputs, processing and overall information flow as part of the benefits analysis;

� Annex C: provides a guide to the proceeding Annexes which describe in detail the individual benefits analyses undertaken for each case study;

� Annexes D-S: contain the detailed individual case study reports for each of the airports examined.

P723D003* HELIOS 10 of 161

2 Study overview

2.1 Background information

The concept of RNAV approach has been introduced by ICAO on a global level to help improve safety and increase operational efficiency for all aviation users. Several different types of RNAV approach exist:

� RNP APCH, which is operated to LNAV minima, this is an RNAV approach without vertical guidance and is almost always based on the use of GPS.

� RNP APCH with Baro-VNAV, which is operated to LNAV/VNAV minima, (also called APV BaroVNAV), this is a vertically guided approach that can be flown by modern aircraft with VNAV functionality using barometric inputs.

� RNP AR (Approval Required), which is operated to LNAV/VNAV minima, make use of advanced RNP capabilities of certain modern aircraft to provide better access to runways with terrain or environmental constraints.

� SBAS APV, which is operated to LPV minima, is a procedure supported by SBAS to provide lateral and vertical guidance. The term LPV stands for localizer performance with vertical guidance and this type of procedure provides an ILS look-a-like approach.

Broadly speaking, RNAV approach fills a gap between conventional Non-Precision Approach (NPA) and Precision Approach (PA). When compared to NPAs, RNAV approaches typically offer the following benefits:

� reduction in approach operational minima, which can enable replacement of conventional NPAs or a back-up to ILS;

� guidance to enable Continuous Descent Final Approach (CDFA) improving safety and offering greater environmental benefits when compared to traditional step-down approaches;

� improved aircrew situation awareness, resulting in increased safety;

� a continuous RNAV path, potentially from en-route through terminal airspace and into final approach;

� removal of need for circling approaches, (where they occur);

� possible removal of VOR and ADF equipment on board aircraft in the long term if NPAs can be entirely phased out;

� reduction in pilot training requirements if the number of different types of approach is reduced.

In 2003, Eurocontrol launched work to investigate the first of these benefits. This study builds upon this initial work taking advantage of a newly developed software tool (known as the Minima Estimator Tool or ‘MET’) to estimate the potential minima reduction enabled by RNAV approach. The range of potential benefits has been assessed by examining a series of case study airports throughout Europe.

2.2 Rationale

RNAV approach can help reduce the number of aircraft disruptions during periods of inclement weather conditions or where ILS is unavailable. A disruption is any

P723D003* HELIOS 11 of 161

aircraft event affecting the movements capacity of an airport and can include delay,diversion or cancellation of an aircraft landing.

This may occur at airports where there is no ILS capability or where the ILS is out of service. The reduction in operational minima enabled by RNAV approach can allow an aircraft to land at an airport where it would otherwise encounter a disruption. This may occur during periods where a combination of low cloud ceiling or reduced runway visibility and current published minima result in a failure to sight the runway in advance of the missed approach point.

2.3 Objective

This study therefore estimates the potential benefit levels derived from reduced aircraft disruptions through the introduction of RNAV approach capability at various case study airports throughout Europe.

In particular the study:

� estimates the potential reduction in current operational minima at each case study airports;

� evaluates the potential increase in airport operational capacity at that airport;

� estimates the corresponding cost savings from the resultant reduction in number of aircraft disruptions.

The case for its introduction is then assessed based upon the following:

� Base case: No RNAV approach is implemented, this is the current day situation;

� Scenario 1: Baro-VNAV approach is implemented and available to all aircraft which are Baro-VNAV capable.

� Scenario 2: Baro-VNAV and SBAS Approaches are used by all aircraft. This assumes a maximum benefit by assuming that aircraft that are not Baro-VNAV capable would upgrade to SBAS. Therefore all aircraft would be either Baro-VNAV or SBAS capable.

The results of this analysis are summarised in Section 4 with supporting detail provided in Annexes D-S inclusive.

2.4 Stakeholder participation

A total of 6 different ANSPs/airport authorities participated in the study allowing analysis of 16 different case study airports. The geographical spread is shown below.

P723D003* HELIOS 12 of 161

Figure 1- participation map

This accounts for the following case study airports:

ANSP/ airport authority Airport Name ICAO code

Skyguide Geneva LSGG

Avinor Tromso ENTC

UkSATSE Simferopol UKFF

Kiev/Borispol UKBB

DSNA

Clermont Ferrand LFLC

Bellegarde LFBL

Biarritz LFBZ

Lille LFQQ

Guipavas LFRB

Finavia

Kittila EFKT

Tampere-Pirkkala EFTP

Rovaniemi EFRO

Oulu EFOU

Ivalo EFIV

CAA Netherlands Schiphol EHAM

Royal Netherlands Air Force Eindhoven airbase EHEH

Table 1 - participating ANSPs/airport authorities & airports

P723D003* HELIOS 13 of 161

These airports demonstrate a range of aircraft users and approach capabilities. They include high traffic airports (e.g. Schiphol), terrain restricted airports (e.g. Geneva) or those which primarily serve smaller aircraft (e.g. Bellegarde). Also included are airports with larger potential for minima reduction (e.g. Tromso).

Our thanks is extended to all the ANSPs/airport authorities who participated in this study and supported the team in their work.

P723D003* HELIOS 14 of 161

3 Benefits methodology

3.1 Overview

This section describes the methodology used in estimating the benefit for each of the case studies. The high-level steps are presented below and then described in more detail in the following sub-sections.

The benefits assessment employs a modular approach calculating in turn:

1) the total number of aircraft landings at the airport;

2) the number of non-ILS landings from these;

3) the disruption probability per approach type;

4) the subsequent number of disrupted NPA landings;

5) the total cost of these disruptions.

1) Total aircraft landings

2) Non-ILS aircraft landings

3) Disruption probability per approach type

4) Aircraft disruptions

All analysis is performed per quarter

Dependant upon airport ILS capability and tailwind – sets upper

bound to potential benefits

Dependant upon estimated (m)DH, cloud ceiling & runway visbility

Dependant upon landing aircraft capability and selected RNAV

capability

5) Total cost savings

Figure 2 - determining the benefits

P723D003* HELIOS 15 of 161

3.2 Total aircraft landings

The benefit for each case study is evaluated on a quarterly basis. The total aircraft movements are estimated based upon 4 individual sample weeks of data provided by the CFMU.

1) Total aircraft landings = (week 4 landings * 13) + (week 20 landings * 13) . (week 32 landings) + (week 45 landings * 13)

Each of the sample weeks includes all aircraft movements within the ECAC area for week 4 (beginning 5th February), week 20 (beginning 14th April), week 32 (beginning 12th August) and week 45 (beginning 5th November) in 2007. This distributed sample set helps to minimise any anomalies occurring within the sample period which may mis-represent the usual landing rate at the case study airports (e.g. ATC strike, runway maintenance, landing incident, etc.) as well as accounting for any seasonal variations.

The quarterly landing rates and aircraft types at an airport are assumed to be constant throughout each quarter.

3.3 Non-ILS landings

The study focuses on aircraft disruptions, i.e. delays, diversions or cancellations, where an aircraft employs a non-ILS approach type, e.g. NDB, VOR, LNAV, APV BaroVNAV or SBAS APV I/II. For any airport, the number of aircraft non-ILS landings are dependant upon total aircraft landings, runway ILS capability (and availability) and tailwind behaviour.

2) Non-ILS landings = function (total aircraft landings, runway ILS capability, , tailwind strength statistics)

Four distinct cases are identified in respect of ILS capability:

� 3 or more ILS installations: if an airport has 3 or more ILS installations, it is assumed to be well served and that all landings will use an ILS approach.

� 2 ILS installations: It is assumed that at least one ILS will be available at all times throughout the year and that outages can occur for a total of 1 week during the year (occurring over a single period or at intermittent times during the year). This equates to a fixed outage probability of 1/(52*4) per quarter.

� 1 ILS installation: As above, it is assumed that planned outages can occur for a total of 1 week during the year (over a single period or at intermittent times).

� No ILS installation : All aircraft landings will be non-ILS.

The runway tailwind conditions are then considered in addition to this. If the tailwind component at the relevant runway end is greater or equal to 5 knots, it is assumed that the aircraft would not use the ILS approach, even if available.

P723D003* HELIOS 16 of 161

The number of non-ILS landings can be calculated using one of the four possible permutations below and together with the appropriate percentage of total airport landings for that runway.

For a single ILS runway, there are two cases in which aircraft will execute a non-ILS approach and therefore be susceptible to disruption:

� The ILS is available, however the tailwind at this runway end exceeds the threshold level of 5knts;

� The tailwind level is acceptable however the ILS is out of service.

Figure 3 - single ILS runway

Two cases also exist for a dual ILS runway:

� The ILS at runway end 1 is unavailable and the tailwind at runway end 2 exceeds the threshold level;

� Similarly, for the ILS runway end 2 out of service and tailwind at runway end 1 exceeding the threshold.

Note, it is assumed that only one ILS can be unavailable at any given time.

ILS1 ILS1

ILS 1 out of serviceConsequence : approach rwy end 2 used

irrespective of tailwindImpact : non -ILS landings

Single runway – single ILS installation

Case 1 Case 2

ILS 1 in serviceTailwind rwy end 1 > threshold

Consequence : approach rwy end 2 usedImpact : non - ILS landings

P723D003* HELIOS 17 of 161

Figure 4 - dual ILS runway

A summary of the combined probability logic for non-ILS landings is presented below.

# ILS Description Assumed logic % probability for non-ILS landing per quarter

>=3 The airport will have more than 1 runway and is assumed to be well served

All landings will be Precision Approach (PA)

0%

2 A single runway airport with ILS installed at both runway ends.

1 week (non-overlapping) maintenance outage assumed per year for each ILS. During this week the logic of a 1ILS airport must be applied however in this instance the two probability factors are multiplied

Summed for both runway ends, the probability of

- Tailwind exceeding threshold

OR

- ILS outage, i.e. 1/(52*4)

for each average hourly block

1 A single runway airport with one ILS installation

Will use ILS when available and when tailwind does not exceed threshold 5 knots.

1 week maintenance outage assumed per year. This translates to a fixed probability of 1/52 per average hourly block, assuming an evenly spread (Gaussian) probability

For the ILS runway end, the probability of

- Tailwind exceeding threshold

OR

- ILS outage, where threshold not exceeded

for each average hourly block

0 No ILS published procedures

All landings will be non-ILS. 100%

Table 2 - Percentage NPA landing conditions

The probability of the tailwind exceeding the threshold is derived from meteorological statistics provided by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric

ILS2

ILS 1

ILS2

ILS 1

ILS 1 out of serviceTailwind rwy end 2 >threshold

Consequence : approach rwy end 1 must be usedImpact : non- ILS landings

ILS 2 out of serviceTailwind rwy end 1 >threshold

Consequence : approach rwy end 2 must be usedImpact : non - ILS landings

Single runway – dual ILS installation

Case 2 Case 1

P723D003* HELIOS 18 of 161

Administration (NOAA). These annual statistics include hourly, if not half hourly, observations of local meteorological conditions and are often the source for airport METARS. They are also used in the next stage of the benefits analysis in examination of runway visibility and cloud ceiling levels.

3.4 Disruption probability per approach type

The probability of an aircraft actually encountering a disruption during a non-ILS approach is dependant upon the operational minima combined with meteorological conditions at the time of approach.

The benefits model assumes, given a particular (Minimum) Decision Altitude/Height or (M)DA/DH, two dominant weather types will result in a disruption; poor runway visibility or low cloud ceiling.

Recorded cloud ceiling

Recorded visibility

Threshold (50ft)

(M)DA/DH

Runway

Required visibility

Required cloud ceiling

Figure 5 - NPA landing conditions

If the decision height of an approach meant that the (M)DA/DH was greater than the required cloud ceiling or the recorded visibility exceeded the required level, then a disruption will ensue. The specific formulation of this follows.

Applying a 30° glide slope, an aircraft descends at a rate of 300 feet/NM in the final approach. Hence, for a given DH:

A) For the cloud ceiling, landings are not possible when:

Recorded cloud ceiling (feet) < DH

B) For visibility:

Tan θ = descent rate

= 300ft/NM (1 NM = 1.852 km)

Where θ is the descent angle.

Tan θ = (DH - 50) / Required visibility

For a given (M)DA/DH (Descent to threshold, hence DH - 50)

P723D003* HELIOS 19 of 161

Since the descent angles are the same:

300/1.852 = (DH - 50) / Required visibility

Required visibility (km) = (1.852*(DH - 50)) / 300

Hence, for visibility, landings are not possible when:

Recorded visibility < Required visibility

Recorded visibility (km) < (1.852*(DH – 50)) / 300

Therefore, landings are not possible if:

3) Recorded cloud ceiling < DH or recorded visibility < (1.852*(DH – 50)) / 300

This formula is evaluated for all hours over each quarter providing a specific probability factor to be applied at all times. This is then applied to the estimated non-ILS landings per quarter.

Current operational minima have been provided by the ANSPs/airport authorities and the newly developed MET tool is used to estimate the potential (Minimum) Decision Heights or (M)DH for LNAV, APV BaroVNAV and SBAS APV I/II1. These are adapted to ensure compliance with current PANS-OPS requirements, i.e.

� The minimum (M)DH for LNAV, APV BaroVNAV and SBAS APV I/II is 250ft for a Precision Approach (PA) runway;

� The minimum (M)DH for LNAV, APV BaroVNAV and SBAS APV I/II is 300ft for a Non Precision Approach (NPA) runway.

3.5 Number of disrupted landings

The total number of disrupted landings is equal to the product of the number of non-ILS landings per hour multiplied by the probability of disruption for the particular approach type, summed over each quarter.

4) Number of disruptions = (number of non-ILS landings per hour) * . . (disruption probability per approach type)

1 The MET tool also provides estimates for ILS CAT I approach types and these have also been included in the case study results.

P723D003* HELIOS 20 of 161

Obviously different aircraft will employ different approach types, dependant upon their equipage level and corresponding capability. The specific approach capability for each airports’ landing profile is therefore evaluated on a case-by-case basis according to the benefits scenario in question.

Generally speaking, aircraft can be categorised in terms of increasing equipage as follows:

� P aircraft – Piston aircraft (eg Cessna 335, Piper PA-31).

� T1 aircraft – Light single engine pressurised turboprop aircraft (eg Beech F90, Piper PA-42-1000).

� T2 aircraft – Light multi-engine pressurised turboprop aircraft (eg Cessna 425 Corsair, BAe-3100 Jetstream 31).

� T3 aircraft – Large turboprop aircraft (eg ATR-72, Fokker F-50).

� J1 aircraft – Light business jet aircraft (eg Cessna 500 Citation, Learjet 35).

� J2 aircraft – Midsize business jet aircraft (eg Bombardier BD-700 Global Express, Dassault Falcon 2000).

� J3 aircraft – Air transport jet and large business jet aircraft (eg Airbus A-320, Boeing 737s).

From previous work, Boeing has indicated that approximately 90% of the active fleet are BaroVNAV capable. More specifically, B717s, B737-300s, B737-400s, B737-500s, B737-600s, B737-700s, B737-800s, B737-900s, B747-400s, B757s, B767s, B777s, B787s and MD-11s are BaroVNAV capable.

In addition, Honeywell has indicated that all Honeywell FMCs are BaroVNAV capable. All Airbus aircraft use Honeywell FMCs and so are BaroVNAV capable. Universal Avionics have also indicated that all their FMSs support VNAV approaches for all NPA types.

Consequently, all J2 and J3 type aircraft are assumed capable of BaroVNAV. All T1, T2 and P type aircraft are assumed not to be BaroVNAV capable. Finally, the J1 and T3 aircraft were researched individually and approximately 50% of T3 and 30% of J1 aircraft are estimated to be BaroVNAV capable.

In terms of SBAS capability, it is assumed that all aircraft which are not BaroVNAV capable will equip with SBAS. The resultant navigation capability is summarised below.

Aircraft equipage category BaroVNAV capable SBAS APV I/II

capable

P 0% 100%

T1 0% 100%

T2 0% 100%

T3 50% 50%

J1 30% 70%

J2 100% 0%

J3 100% 0%

Figure 6 - aircraft navigation capability

P723D003* HELIOS 21 of 161

Since the (M)DHs provided by the MET tool are specific to the aircraft approach category for SBAS APV I/II and ILS CAT I approach types the analysis uses a library of all operating aircraft for the case studies, cross referencing aircraft approach capability to percentage BaroVNAV and/or SBAS capable.

3.6 Total cost savings

The case for RNAV introduction is investigated based upon the following:

� Base case: No RNAV approach is implemented, this is the current day situation;

� Scenario 1: Baro-VNAV approach is implemented and available to all aircraft which are Baro-VNAV capable;

� Scenario 2: Baro-VNAV and SBAS Approaches are used by all aircraft. This assumes a maximum benefit by assuming that aircraft that are not Baro-VNAV capable would upgrade to SBAS. Therefore all aircraft would be either Baro-VNAV or SBAS capable.

Total cost savings are defined with respect to the base case and are calculated in applying a standard operator cost per disruption. This is set at €4,6602 based upon an average of 50 minutes of time lost per diversion and 43 passengers per flight. The recommended cost figures for each are €66 per minute of delay and €38 per hour for the passenger value of time.

2 ‘Standard Inputs for Eurocontrol Cost Benefit Analysis’

P723D003* HELIOS 22 of 161

4 Case study results

4.1 Overview

This section presents the individual benefits analysis results for each case study airport. A standard results template is used and describes the potential benefits for each of the defined scenarios.

For each case study, the default operational runway is selected based upon a combination of current operational minima and average wind conditions. This may change throughout the analysis period owing to tailwind conditions, environmental restrictions, etc. Complete details of all the analyses are provided in the Annexes and these should be referenced to obtain further explanation.

4.2 Analysis results template

The analysis results for each case study are presented in the following format:

� Airport overview : indicating airport name, runway configuration, ILS capability and particular interest in RNAV approach implementation.

� Airport traffic : providing statistics on the level of annual landings at the airport and the respective user breakdown. The number of non-ILS landings (as a result of ILS outage or high tailwind conditions) is also indicated for each aircraft category. The benefit is evaluated based upon the potential reduction in disruptions occurring for these landings.

� Operational minima : presenting for the runway(s) of interest both the published operational minima and potential minima as estimated by the MET tool (and in compliance with PANS-OPS requirements).

� Current day situation : providing the estimated number and cost of aircraft disruptions incurred with current operational minima for the runway of interest.

� Potential benefits : providing the estimated benefit of reduced aircraft disruptions with respect to the current day situation. This is assessed for BaroVNAV (Scenario 1) and BaroVNAV/SBAS APVI (Scenario 2) implementation.

P723D003* HELIOS 23 of 161

4.3 Geneva (LSGG) analysis results

Airport Overview

Airport Name Geneva

ICAO Code LSGG

Runway configuration

Number of runway(s): 1

Number of runway end(s) equipped with ILS: 2

Interest in RNAV approach capability

As a backup to ILS

Airport Annual Landings & User Breakdown

Total CAT A CAT B CAT C CAT D

Total landings 80,769 2,158 14,170 63,817 624

NPA landings 123 3 22 97 1

As % of total landings 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Runway end LSGG05 Published Operational Minima (OCH /ft)

Approach type CAT A CAT B CAT C CAT D

ILS CAT I 200

NDB 433

LLZ (/DME) 479

Runway end LSGG05 Study Calculated Operational Mini ma (OCH/ft)


ILS CAT I 250 250 250 253

SBAS APV I 263 273 282 292

SBAS APV II 250 250 259 269

APV BaroVNAV 407

LNAV 437

Current Day Situation

Annual number of disruptions 1.1

Annual cost of disruptions (€) 5,300

Potential Benefits

Scenario 1 Scenario 2

Annual number of avoided disruptions 0.0 0.2

Annual cost savings (€) 200 700

P723D003* HELIOS 24 of 161

4.4 Tromso (ENTC) analysis results

Airport Overview

Airport Name Tromso

ICAO Code ENTC




Use of runway: ENCT19 is assumed to be the default


As backup to ILS.

This case study highlights the limitation of MET tool in excluding obstacles in intermediate approach area. Only APV BaroVNAV is seen to offer a reduction and is investigated.



Total landings 18,291 741 10,621 6,929 0

Non-ILS landings 46 2 27 17 0


Runway end ENTC19 Published Operational Minima (OCH /ft)


ILS CAT I 282 329 347 1041

LLZ (/DME) 850 1050

Runway end ENTC19 Study Calculated Operational Mini ma (OCH/ft)


ILS CAT I 604 614 624 634

SBAS APV I 3130 3140 3150 3160

SBAS APV II 3130 3140 3150 3160

APV BaroVNAV 767

LNAV 1766




Potential Benefits


Annual number of avoided disruptions 0.1 _

Annual cost savings (€) 200 _

P723D003* HELIOS 25 of 161

4.5 Simferopol (UKFF) analysis results

Airport Overview

Airport Name Simferopol

ICAO Code UKFF





In consideration of extending the existing RNAV approach phase.



Total landings 6,526 78 2,015 3,614 819



Runway end UKFF19 Published Operational Minima (OCH /ft)


ILS CAT I 164

NDB 345

VOR 345

Runway end UKFF19 Study Calculated Operational Mini ma (OCH/ft)


ILS CAT I 250 250 250 250

SBAS APV I 250 250 250 250

SBAS APV II 250 250 250 250

APV BaroVNAV 250

LNAV 325




Potential Benefits



Annual cost savings (€) 700 1,000

P723D003* HELIOS 26 of 161

4.6 Kiev/Borispol (UKBB) analysis results

Airport Overview

Airport Name Kiev/Borispol

ICAO Code UKBB





In consideration of extending the existing RNAV approach phase.



Total landings 40,560 182 7,644 31,044 1,690



Runway end UKBB18 Published Operational Minima (OCH /ft)


ILS CAT I 140

NDB 380

LLZ (/DME) 380

Runway end UKBB18 Study Calculated Operational Mini ma (OCH/ft)


ILS CAT I 250 250 250 250

SBAS APV I 250 250 250 256

SBAS APV II 250 250 250 250

APV BaroVNAV 405

LNAV 336


Annual number of disruptions 7


Potential Benefits



Annual cost savings (€) 5,700 7,600

P723D003* HELIOS 27 of 161

4.7 Eindhoven Airbase (EHEH) analysis results

Airport Overview

Airport Name Eindhoven Airbase

ICAO Code EHEH





This is joint civilian and military use airport with a single dual ILS equipped runway for each.

RNAV approach is seen as beneficial for military users for training purposes and as a back up to ILS for civilian users.



Total landings 9,789 65 2,873 6,851 0



Runway end 34 Published (minimum) Decision Height ( ft)


ILS CAT I 261

TACAN 420

NDB 490

Runway end 34 Estimated RNAV Decision Height (ft)


ILS CAT I 250 250 250 250

SBAS APV I 250 250 250 250

SBAS APV II 250 250 250 250

APV BaroVNAV 345

LNAV 523




Potential Benefits




3 Confining analysis to civil aircraft use. An additional runway is used for military aircraft.

P723D003* HELIOS 28 of 161

4.8 Clermont Ferrand (LFLC) analysis results

Airport Overview

Airport Name Clermont-Ferrand

ICAO Code LFLC



Number of runway end(s) equipped with ILS: 1 (LFLC26)


As backup to ILS.

Location of significant obstacles highlights limitation of MET tool



Total landings 10,049 429 4,186 5,408 26

NPA landings 352 15 145 192 1


Runway end LFLC26 Published Operational Minima (OCH /ft)


ILS CAT II 280

ILS CAT I 410

NDB 440

LLZ (/DME) 500

Runway end LFLC26 Study Calculated Operational Mini ma (OCH/ft)


ILS CAT I 132 142 151 161

SBAS APV I 168 178 188 198

SBAS APV II 136 146 156 166

APV BaroVNAV 473

LNAV 728




Potential Benefits


Annual number of avoided disruptions 0 0.2

Annual cost savings (€) 0 900

P723D003* HELIOS 29 of 161

4.9 Bellegarde (LFBL) analysis results

Airport Overview

Airport Name Bellegarde

ICAO Code LFBL



Number of runway end(s) equipped with ILS: 1 (LFBL21)


As backup to ILS



Total landings 4,329 169 2,951 1,209 0

NPA landings 883 34 616 234 0


Runway end LFBL21 Published Operational Minima (OCH /ft)


ILS CAT I 200

LOC 550

NDB 580

Runway end LFBL21 Study Calculated Operational Mini ma (OCH/ft)


ILS CAT I 250 250 250 250

SBAS APV I 250 250 250 250

SBAS APV II 250 250 250 250

APV BaroVNAV 286

LNAV 1022




Potential Benefits


Annual number of avoided disruptions 30 59


P723D003* HELIOS 30 of 161

4.10 Biarritz (LFBZ) analysis results

Airport Overview

Airport Name Biarritz

ICAO Code LFBZ



Number of runway end(s) equipped with ILS: 1 (LFBZ27)


Change in default operational runway end from LFBZ27 to LFBZ09



Total landings 5,850 364 1,326 4,160 0

NPA landings 854 51 192 612 0


Runway end LFBZ09 Published Operational Minima (OCH /ft)


VOR 390

LNAV 380

Runway end LFBZ09 Study Calculated Operational Mini ma (OCH/ft)


ILS CAT I 132 142 151 161

SBAS APV I 300 300 300 300

SBAS APV II 300 300 300 300

APV BaroVNAV 327

LNAV 379




Potential Benefits


Annual number of avoided disruptions -3 -1

Annual cost savings (€) _ _

P723D003* HELIOS 31 of 161

4.11 Lille (LFQQ) analysis results

Airport Overview

Airport Name Lille

ICAO Code LFQQ



Number of runway end(s) equipped with ILS: 1 (LFQQ26)


Change in default operational runway end from LFQQ26 to LFQQ08



Total landings 9,321 546 1,937 6,838 9,321

NPA landings 1,165 67 242 856 1,165


Runway end LFQQ08 Published Operational Minima (OCH /ft)


LNAV 350

VOR/DME 360

VOR 440

Runway end LFQQ08 Tool Operational Minima (OCH/ft)


ILS CAT I 132 142 151 161

SBAS APV I 300 250 250 250

SBAS APV II 300 250 250 250

APV BaroVNAV 300

LNAV 300




Potential Benefits


Annual number of avoided disruptions -78 -70

Annual cost savings (€) _ _

P723D003* HELIOS 32 of 161

4.12 Guipavas (LFRB) analysis results

Airport Overview

Airport Name Guipavas

ICAO Code LFRB



Number of runway end(s) equipped with ILS: 1 (LFRB25)


As backup to ILS



Total landings 6,760 260 520 5,954 26

NPA landings 995 37 74 881 4


Runway end LFRB25 Published Operational Minima (OCH /ft)


ILS CAT I 200

LOC 460

NDB 450

Runway end LFRB25 Study Calculated Operational Mini ma (OCH/ft)


ILS CAT I 174 184 194 204

SBAS APV I 215 225 234 244

SBAS APV II 183 193 203 213

APV BaroVNAV 400

LNAV 410




Potential Benefits




P723D003* HELIOS 33 of 161

4.13 Kittila (EFKT) analysis results

There are two distinct cases considered for EFKT:

Airport Overview

Airport Name Kittila

ICAO Code EFKT



Number of runway end(s) equipped with ILS: 1 (EFKT34)


Case 1: as backup to ILS and in the future, replace current NDB procedure.

Initial plans are for APV BaroVNAV implementation.



Total landings 624 0 13 611 0



Runway end EFKT34 Published Operational Minima (OCH /ft)


ILS CAT I 162 173 188 206

NDB 790 750 720 730

LLZ (/DME) 730 700 680 700

Runway end EFKT34 Study Calculated Operational Mini ma (OCH/ft)


ILS CAT I 425 435 445 454

SBAS APV I 250 250 250 250

SBAS APV II 250 250 250 250

APV BaroVNAV 453

LNAV 654




Potential Benefits




P723D003* HELIOS 34 of 161

Airport Overview

Airport Name Kittila

ICAO Code EFKT



Number of runway end(s) equipped with ILS: 1 (EFKT34)


Case 2: as a means to increasing airport capacity through a switch in the default operational runway end.







Runway end EFKT16 Published Operational Minima (OCH /ft)


LLZ (/DME) 480

Runway end EFKT16 Study Calculated Operational Mini ma (OCH/ft)


ILS CAT I 300 300 300 300

SBAS APV I 300 300 300 300

SBAS APV II 300 300 300 300

APV BaroVNAV 579

LNAV 1047




Potential Benefits




P723D003* HELIOS 35 of 161

4.14 Tampere-Pirkkala (EFTP) analysis results

Airport Overview

Airport Name Tampere-Pirkkala

ICAO Code EFTP



Number of runway end(s) equipped with ILS: 1 (EFTP24)


As backup to ILS.

As means of providing an alternative runway end EFTP06 with improved minima to satisfy environmental requirements for night time arrivals.

There are plans for APV BaroVNAV trials at both runway ends.



Total landings 5,252 117 2,340 2,795 0

NPA landings 510 11 236 263 0


Runway end EFTP24 Published Operational Minima (OCH /ft)


ILS CAT I 176

RNAV 500

LLZ (/DME) 500

VOR 530

Runway end EFTP24 Study Calculated Operational Mini ma (OCH/ft)


ILS CAT I 250 250 250 262

SBAS APV I 252 261 271 281

SBAS APV II 250 250 252 262

APV BaroVNAV 360

LNAV 499




Potential Benefits




P723D003* HELIOS 36 of 161

4.15 Rovaniemi (EFRO) analysis results

Airport Overview

Airport Name Rovaniemi

ICAO Code EFRO



Number of runway end(s) equipped with ILS: 1 (EFRO21)


As a backup to ILS




Total landings 2,236 26 221 1,989 0



Runway end EFRO21 Published Operational Minima (OCH /ft)


ILS CAT I 174 187 199 210

LNAV 370

LOC 380

VOR 400

NDB 430

Runway end EFRO21 Study Calculated Operational Mini ma (OCH/ft)


ILS CAT I 216 226 236 245

SBAS APV I 257 267 276 286

SBAS APV II 225 235 245 255

APV BaroVNAV 265

LNAV 392




Potential Benefits




P723D003* HELIOS 37 of 161

4.16 Oulu (EFOU) analysis results

Airport Overview

Airport Name Oulu

ICAO Code EFOU



Number of runway end(s) equipped with ILS: 1 (EFOU12)


As a backup to ILS




Total landings 4,771 65 286 4,420 0

NPA landings 1,017 13 66 939 0


Runway end EFOU12 Published Operational Minima (OCH /ft)


171 181 189 202

LNAV 370

LLZ (/DME) 370

VOR 370

NDB 390

Runway end EFOU12 Study Calculated Operational Mini ma (OCH/ft)


ILS CAT I 250 250 250 250

SBAS APV I 250 250 250 250

SBAS APV II 250 250 250 250

APV BaroVNAV 310

LNAV 368




Potential Benefits




P723D003* HELIOS 38 of 161

4.17 Ivalo (EFIV) analysis results

Airport Overview

Airport Name Ivalo

ICAO Code EFIV



Number of runway end(s) equipped with ILS: 1 (EFIV22)


As a backup to ILS







Runway end EFIV22 Published Operational Minima (OCH /ft)


ILS CAT I 172 184 196 210

LOC 560

RNAV 670

NDB 750

Runway end EFIV22 Study Calculated Operational Mini ma (OCH/ft)


ILS CAT I 315 325 335 345

SBAS APV I 336 413 355 365

SBAS APV II 324 250 344 353

APV BaroVNAV 413

LNAV 462




Potential Benefits




P723D003* HELIOS 39 of 161

P723D003* HELIOS 40 of 161

5 Study summary and conclusions

5.1 Introduction

This section gives a summary of the study results and conclusions.

5.2 Estimated reduction in decision heights

The potential reduction in operational minima with respect to published NPAs is shown below for all case study airports. The minimum (Min) and maximum (Max) values are presented in respect of the various published approach types and respective aircraft approach categories.

APV BaroVNAV SBAS APVI

Name Runway end

Min (ft) Max (ft) Min (ft)

Max (ft)

Geneva LSGG05 30 70 140 220

Tromso ENTC194 0 80 - -

Simferopol UKFF01 30 130 30 130

UKFF19 100 100 100 100

Kiev/Borispol UKBB18 0 0 130 130

UKBB36 60 60 110 110

Eindhoven Airbase

EHEH04 70 140 170 240

EHEH22 150 150 250 250

Clermont Ferrand LFLC26 0 0

160 250

Bellegarde LFBL03 210 210 210 210

LFBL21 260 280 300 330

Biarritz LFBZ09 50 60 80 90

Lille LFQQ08 50 140 50 140

Guipavas LFRB07 10 100 110 200

LFRB25 200 210 170 230

Kittila EFKT16 0 0 230 230

EFKT34 130 270 430 470

Tampere-Pirkkala

EFTP06 10 50 90 140

EFTP24 140 170 250 280

4 The surrounding terrain environment at ENTC is unsuitable for the estimation model of the MET tool.

P723D003* HELIOS 41 of 161

Name Runway end

Min (ft) Max (ft) Min (ft)

Max (ft)

Rovaniemi EFRO03 90 150 90 150

EFRO21 70 130 70 130

Oulu EFOU12 60 70 120 140

EFOU30 20 60 60 100

Ivalo EFIV04 230 230 220 250

EFIV22 140 320 200 390

Schipol

EHAM06 0 0 0 10

EHAM18C 0 0 50 330

EHAM18R 0 80 0 160

Table 3 - summary of minima reduction with respect to NPAs

The potential reduction in operational minima, enabled by APV BaroVNAV, ranges from 0 to 320ft. The introduction of SBAS APVI enables a potential reduction of 0 to 470ft.

The chart below shows the range of reductions enabled by APV BaroVNAV approach procedures. A wide variation can be seen across all case studies, and in some cases at individual case study airports. In general a reduction of approximately 70ft is seen with respect to published NPA minima. This is in line with expectations.

BaroVNAV reduction in (m)DHs

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

LSGG05

ENTC

UKFF01

UKFF19

UKBB18

UKBB36

EHEH04

EHEH22

LFLC

26

LFBL0

3

LFBL2

1

LFBZ09

LFQQ08

LFRB07

EFKT16

EFKT34

EFTP06

EFTP24

EFRO03

EFRO21

EFOU12

EFOU30

EFIV04

EFIV22

EHAM06

EHAM18

C

EHAM18

R

Runway end

Red

uctio

n in

NP

A m

inim

a

Min

Max

Figure 7 - variation of BaroVNAV enabled minima red uction

A similar chart is observed for SBAS APV I operational minima reductions. There is wide variation across the different case study airports, however the variation at specific airports is not as pronounced. In general a reduction of approximately 100ft is seen with respect to published NPA minima.

P723D003* HELIOS 42 of 161

Therefore, in general, SBAS APV I approach offers improved minima on the order of 30ft with respect to APV BaroVNAV approach.

SBAS APVI reduction in (m)DH

050

100150200250300350400450500

UKFF01

UKFF19

UKBB18

UKBB36

EHEH04

EHEH22

LFLC

26

LFBL0

3

LFBL2

1

LFBZ09

LFQQ08

LFRB07

EFKT16

EFKT34

EFTP06

EFTP24

EFRO03

EFRO21

EFOU12

EFOU30

EFIV04

EFIV22

EHAM06

EHAM18

C

EHAM18

R

Runway end

Red

uctio

n in

NP

A m

inim

a

Min

Max

Figure 8 - variation of SBAS APV I enabled minima r eduction

Whilst the above charts illustrate the potential reduction in minima as estimated by the MET tool, it must be highlighted that the PANS-OPS requirements in respect of an airports’ Precision Approach (PA) capability can limit this reduction in practise. It states that for a PA runway the minima for an APV approach will be 250ft whereas for a Non-Precision Approach (NPA) runway it will be 300ft. This can in some cases significantly reduce any potential benefits and decrease the minimum and maximum ranges illustrated above.

Indeed, a certain level of caution must be exercised in interpreting the results of the MET tool. It is by definition an estimation tool and so cannot replace a complete procedure design process. It provides an estimation of the potential Obstacle Clearance Heights (OCHs) for each of the approach types and so strict interpretation of these values requires the knowledge and the experience of a procedure designer.

The MET tool assumes a straight-in approach modelling only the final approach and initial missed approach segment. This results in some limitations:

� A bias in the estimates of operational minima when compared to ILS minima in cases where the controlling obstacle for the minima of the procedure is located in the final missed approach segment.

� Overly pessimistic estimation of operational minima in the case where there is high terrain on the limits of the Final Approach Point (FAP) and intermediate segment.

� Unusually high OCH values for LNAV and APV BaroVNAV approaches where the highest controlling obstacle is far in the Missed Approach (MA) segment yet remaining on the edge of the Obstacle Assessment Surface (OAS). This is inherent of the OAS model and would not appear in the case of other procedure design methodologies, for example in the use of a Collision Risk Model (CRM) investigation.

P723D003* HELIOS 43 of 161

Nevertheless experience of the MET tool confirmed that the operational minima of a new approach type is extremely site specific. It depends upon the obstacle height and lhas shown that the potential minima reduction has to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. The estimated operational minima are extremely site specific, dependant on both obstacle height and location with respect to the assessment surfaces.

5.3 Estimated cost savings

The study considered two scenarios for each airport case study compared to the current day situation (no RNAV approach implemented):

� Scenario 1: Baro-VNAV approach is implemented and available to all aircraft which are Baro-VNAV capable;

� Scenario 2: Baro-VNAV and SBAS Approaches are used by all aircraft. This assumes that aircraft that are not Baro-VNAV capable would upgrade to SBAS.

The estimated benefit is then calculated as the difference in annual cost savings for each of the Scenarios 1 and 2 with respect to the Base case. A summary of the resultant potential cost savings for each case study is presented below. The airports are arranged such that the first 5 airports from the left (i.e. LSGG-EHEH) all have ILS installed at both runway ends. The following 11 airports (i.e. LFLC-EFIV) all have ILS installed at a single runway end.

Estimated benefits

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

LSGG

ENTCUKFF

UKBB

EHEHLF

LCLF

BLLF

BZ

LFQQ

LFRB

EFKTEFTP

EFROEFOU

EFIV

Case study airport

Ann

ual s

avin

gs (

€)

Scenario 1

Scenario 2

Figure 9 - Benefits overview

The cost savings are seen to vary on a wide scale, ranging from €0-272,000 per year. This includes:

� case studies such as Bellegarde airport (LFBL) or Guipavas (LFRB) in France which demonstrate cost savings in the region of €200,00 per year;

� case studies such Tampere-Pirkkala (EFTP), Rovaniemi (EFRO), or Oulu (EFOU)in Finland, which demonstrate cost savings in the region of €50,000;

� case studies such as Geneva (LSGG), in Switzerland, or Simferopol (UKFF), in the Ukraine, which demonstrate negligible cost savings.

P723D003* HELIOS 44 of 161

There are a number of general conclusions which can be made in regards the introduction of RNAV approach capability:

� There is negligible benefit in the case of a runway with ILS installed at both runway ends. The combined probability of an ILS outage together with high tailwinds is typically quite low, resulting in few aircraft disruptions. Irrespective of the enabled reduction in minima, there is little opportunity to realise any operational benefit as a result. This is observed in all such case studies.

� There can be significant benefit in the case of a runway with ILS installed at a single end. The magnitude of this benefit is dependant upon a number of factors such as tailwind conditions, airport traffic levels, minima reduction, etc. Where this occurs it is seen to achieve either a high level of cost savings at approximately €200,000 per year, or a lower level at approximately €50,000 per year.

� The benefit is greatest in the case of an NPA-only runway. Aircraft are inherently more susceptible to disruption having to operate to higher minima and therefore any reduction in these will have a significant impact5.

� Greater benefit can be realised through the combined introduction of RNAV capability using both APV BaroVNAV and SBAS, Scenario 2, rather than solely through the current APV BaroVNAV capability, Scenario 1. The extent of this additional benefit is of course dependant upon current BaroVNAV equipage levels amongst airspace users as well as the difference of minima reduction between the two approach types (and its actual operational impact). It is seen to achieve an additional €20,000 per year in a number of cases.

In order to draw more specific conclusions therefore, it is necessary to identify the various factors which are in play and which dominant the resultant cost savings. The following table presents an account of all the case studies considered and highlights the various influencing factors in each.

5 Whilst there is no NPA airport in the final case study list, preliminary analysis of one example supported this conclusion. This case study however had to be withdrawn owing to the finding of incomplete obstacle data for its surrounding environment and therefore overly optimistic minima reduction .

P723D003* HELIOS 45 of 161

ICAO code Name #

ILS

Annual cost savings Overview of influencing factors Scenario

1 Scenario 2

LSGG Geneva 2 200 700

Very high traffic airport (80,769 annual landings). Negligible percentage of non-ILS landings (<1%, ILS installed at both runway ends, coupled with low tailwind conditions). Therefore little potential for cost saving despite significant reduction in operational minima.

Currently only a low number of annual aircraft disruptions estimated to occur (3). Estimated annual disruptions decrease by 0.1 and 0.3 respectively for each of the scenarios.

ENTC Tromso 2

MET tool unsuitable given local terrain

_

Medium traffic airport (18,291 annual landings). Negligible percentage of non-ILS landings (<1%, ILS installed at both runway ends, coupled with low tailwind conditions). Therefore little potential for cost savings. Estimated OCH values are overly pessimistic owing to limitations of MET tool

Currently no annual aircraft disruptions estimated therefore there is negligible expected benefit irrespective of an improved minimum estimation.

UKFF Simferopol 2 700 1,000

Low traffic airport (6,526 annual landings). Negligible percentage of non-ILS landings (<1%), ILS installed at both runway ends). Therefore little potential for cost savings.

Currently only a low number of annual disruptions estimated to occur (0.8). Whilst strong tailwind conditions can occur the cloud ceiling and runway visibility conditions are generally favourable attenuating any potential benefit from reduced operational minima. Estimated annual disruptions decrease by 0.3 for both scenarios.

This is an example airport for both daily and seasonal variation of the default operational runway end.

UKBB Kiev/Borispol 2 5,700 7,600

High traffic airport (40,560 annual landings). Negligible percentage of non-ILS landings (<1%), ILS installed at both runway ends, coupled with low tailwind conditions). This reduces the potential for cost saving despite significant reduction in operational minima however cloud ceiling and runway visibility conditions are at times unfavourable.

Currently only a low number of annual aircraft disruptions estimated to occur (7). Estimated annual disruptions decrease by 1.3 and 1.5 respectively for each scenario.


P723D003* HELIOS 46 of 161

ICAO code Name #

ILS


1 Scenario 2

EHEH Eindhoven airbase 2 1,300 2,300

Medium traffic airport (9,789 annual landings). Negligible percentage of non-ILS landings (<1%), ILS installed at both runway ends, coupled with low tailwind conditions. Therefore little potential for cost saving despite significant reduction in operational minima.

Currently low number of annual aircraft disruptions estimated to occur (2). Estimated annual disruptions decrease by 0.3 and 0.5 respectively for each of the scenarios.

LFLC Clermont Ferrand 1 0 900

Low traffic airport (10,049 annual landings). Low percentage of non-ILS landings (4%).

Location of controlling obstacle in missed approach segment highlights limitation of Obstacle Assessment Surface (OAS) model of MET providing pessimistic minima values for APV BaroVNAV approach type (and therefore no annual cost saving).

Currently only a low number of annual aircraft disruptions estimated to occur (6). Estimated annual disruptions decrease by 0 and 0.2 respectively for each scenario.

Irrespective of improved minima estimation the generally favourable meteorological conditions would be expected to result in negligible annual cost savings.

LFBL Bellegarde 1 141,300 272,700

Low traffic airport (4,329 annual landings). High percentage of non-ILS landings (20%), due in part to variability of the tailwind.

Currently very high number of annual aircraft disruptions estimated to occur (107). Significant reduction in operational minima. Estimated annual disruptions decrease by 30 and 59 respectively for each of the scenarios. The operational benefit of reduced minima is amplified in winter months (Q1 and Q4) owing to unfavourable meteorological conditions during these times.


LFBZ Biarritz 1 0 0

Low traffic airport (5,850 annual landings). High percentage of non-ILS landings (15%) due in part to variability of the tailwind and particularly high peaks during Q1.

Currently high number of annual aircraft disruptions estimated to occur (32).

Low reduction in operational minima. Limited obstacle data provided therefore

P723D003* HELIOS 47 of 161

ICAO code Name #

ILS


1 Scenario 2

investigated the use of an alternative default operational runway end using RNAV approach. No reduction in annual disruptions observed therefore zero cost savings indicated.

Annual cost savings would be expected employing RNAV approach as a backup to ILS for the current default operational runway end.

LFQQ Lille 1 0 0

Low traffic airport (9,321 annual landings). Very high percentage of non-ILS landings (36%) owing to generally high tailwind conditions.

Very high number of annual aircraft disruptions estimated (311) owing to meteorological conditions during Q1 and Q4.

As above, limited obstacle data provided therefore investigated the use of an alternative operational runway end. Annual cost savings would be expected employing RNAV approach as a backup to ILS for the current default operational runway end.

LFRB Guipavas 1 207,300 233,000

Low traffic airport (6,760 annual landings). High percentage of non-ILS landings (15%) due in part to variability in tailwind conditions.

Currently high number of annual aircraft disruptions estimated to occur (97) owing to high NPA minima and unfavourable meteorological conditions. Significant reduction in operational minima. The benefit of this is amplified by unfavourable meteorological conditions Estimated annual disruptions decrease by 44 and 50 respectively for each scenario.

EFKT Kittila 1

95,000

195,800

96,500

196,100

Low traffic airport (624 annual landings). 2 cases were considered:

Case 1: RNAV approach capability as backup to ILS. High percentage of non-ILS landings (29%) owing to strong tailwinds.

Currently high number of annual aircraft disruptions estimated to occur (47). Significant reduction in operational minima. Some periods where unfavourable meteorological conditions occurs. Estimated annual disruptions decrease by 20 and 21respectively for each of the scenarios.

Case 2: RNAV approach capability as means to an alternative default operational runway end. With respect to published minima at current default operational runway, little reduction in minima. Significant reduction in operational minima (albeit it capped in meeting PANS-OPS requirements). Estimated annual disruptions decreased by 42 for

P723D003* HELIOS 48 of 161

ICAO code Name #

ILS


1 Scenario 2

both scenarios, largely owing to the reduced tailwind conditions.

EFTP Tampere-Pirkkala 1 37,400 99,300

Medium traffic airport (5,252 annual landings). Low percentage of non-ILS landings (10%).

Currently very large number of annual aircraft disruptions estimated to occur (101) largely owing to unfavourable meteorological conditions during winter months (i.e. Q1 and Q4). Significant reduction over current operational minima. Estimated annual disruptions decrease by 17 and 38 respectively for each of the scenarios.

This is an example airport where environmental requirements restrict operations.

EFRO Rovaniemi 1 50,500 68,300

Low traffic seasonal airport (2,236 annual landings). High percentage of non-ILS landings (16%) due in part to variability in tailwind conditions

Currently high number of annual aircraft disruptions estimated to occur (48) most of which are during the winter months (Q1 and Q4). Current NPA minima quite high at 400ft and so significant reduction in operational minima. Estimated annual disruptions decrease by 11 and 15 respectively for each of the scenarios.

EFOU Oulu 1 26,700 46,200

Medium traffic seasonal airport (4,771 annual landings). High percentage of non-ILS landings (21%) due in part to variability in tailwind conditions.

Currently high number of annual aircraft disruptions estimated to occur (39) most of which are during the winter months (Q1 and Q4). Significant reduction over current operational minima however realised benefit is somewhat attenuated by favourable meteorological conditions. Estimated annual disruptions decrease by 6 and 10 respectively for each of the scenarios.

EFIV Ivalo 1 11,400 11,700

Low traffic airport (455 annual landings). High percentage of non-ILS landings (13%) due in part to variability in tailwind conditions.

Currently low number of annual aircraft disruptions estimated to occur (4). Significant reduction over current operational minima. Estimated annual disruptions decrease by 2 and 3 respectively for each of the scenarios.

Table 4 -summary of estimated cost savings

P723D003* HELIOS 49 of 161

From this, several key factors can be identified:

� the airport traffic levels, their daily and seasonal variation (and of course the constituent aircraft approach capabilities);

� the number of non-ILS landings at the runway of interest, dependant upon the ILS capability and tailwind strength and variability;

� the potential reduction in operational minima enabled by RNAV approach, dependant upon the local terrain environment (and especially significant for NPA runways);

� the local meteorological conditions, more specifically cloud ceiling and runway visibility, which can greatly amplify or attenuate the realisable benefits.

Each of these factors has a varying influence on the final cost savings.

For example, for airports such as Bellegarde (LFBL) or Guipavas (LFRB) it would appear that the overall traffic levels and subsequent percentage of non-ILS landings plays the dominant role. These airports have approximately 4,300 and 6,700 landings per year respectively, and a high percentage of these are non-ILS at 15 and 20% respectively. Both exhibit annual cost savings in the region of €200,000.

Oulu (EFOU) has very similar characteristics with approximately 4,700 landings per year and 21% of these are non-ILS. In this instance however the dominant factor is the local meteorological conditions. These tend to attenuate any potential benefit realised from a reduction in the operational minima and result in much lower annual cost savings of approximately €40,000.

Therefore amongst the case studies, not only does the absolute impact of these influencing factors change, but so too does their order of precedence. This eliminates the possibility of identifying any congruencies amongst the factors. As is the case with estimating the potential reduction in minima, the operational impact of this reduction must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

5.4 LPV200 candidates

The MET analysis undertaken was also used to determine potential candidates for LPV200 approach procedures. These are identified where the OCHs for SBAS APVI, APVII and ILS CAT I are lower or equal to 200ft.

The following possible candidate airports are identified (in some cases LPV200 will be possible only for certain aircraft approach categories).

P723D003* HELIOS 50 of 161

Name Runway Applicable aircraft category

Simferopol UKFF01 Categories A and B only

UKFF19 All categories

Kiev/Borispol UKBB36 Category A only

Bellegarde LFBL03 All categories

LFBL21 All categories

Biarritz LFBZ09 Category A only

Lille LFQQ08 All categories

Oulu EFOU12 Category A only

Eindhoven airbase EHEH04 Category A only

Table 5 - LPV200 potential candidates

The MET tool would need to be upgraded to include LPV200 design criteria for a more accurate estimation.

P723D003* HELIOS 51 of 161

A Types of RNAV approach

A.1 Overview

This annex defines the different types of RNAV approach.

A.2 RNP APCH

Operated to LNAV minima, this is an RNAV approach without vertical guidance. It is often called an RNAV NPA and is almost always based on the use of GPS.

A.3 RNP APCH with Baro-VNAV

Operated to LNAV/VNAV minima, RNP APCH with Baro-VNAV is also called APV BaroVNAV. This is a procedure is a vertically guided approach that can be flown by modern aircraft with VNAV functionality using barometric inputs. Most Boeing and Airbus aircraft already have this capability meaning that a large part of the fleet is already equipped.

A.4 RNP AR

Operated to LNAV/VNAV minima, RNP AR (Approval Required) approaches make use of advanced RNP capabilities of certain modern aircraft to provide better access to runways with terrain or environmental constraints. They use specific obstacle clearance criteria and require a particular RNP approval for the aircraft. RNP AR is designed for the latest, most sophisticated aircraft, capable of Performance Based Navigation and requires a particular kind of safety assessment (FOSA) for operational approval.

A.5 SBAS APV

Operated to LPV minima, this is a procedure supported by SBAS systems such as WAAS in the US and EGNOS in Europe to provide lateral and vertical guidance. The term LPV stands for localizer performance with vertical guidance. The lateral performance is equivalent to an ILS localizer and the vertical guidance is provided against a geometric path in space rather than a barometric altitude. LPV is of particular interest to a category of users with aircraft that do not have sophisticated FMS based avionics that can perform APV BaroVNAV.

P723D003* HELIOS 52 of 161

B Model information flow

The benefits assessment model incorporates a range of inputs and processes in various ways. The following diagram illustrates the data flow of the benefits model.

P723D003 HELIOS 53 of 162

Figure 10 - model information flow

CFMU Week 1All airports

09:00-10:0010:00-11:00

….23:00-00:00

total A B C D

Q1 total airport landings per hour block




09:00-10:0010:00-11:00

….23:00-00:00

NDB VOR etc….

ILS CATI

LNAV BaroVNAV

SBAS APVI

_A

Q1 Disruption Probability per hour block

For cost of equipage

Current capabilities

SBAS APVII

_A

ILS_ CATI_A

Potential capabilities (MET tool estimates)

Etc….

Q2 Q3 Q4

Aircraft Catalogue

A/c Type

B747…….

A/c Approach Category(A, B…)

D…...

A/c Equipage Category(J1, J2..)

J3……..

Total Landings Profile

09:00-10:0010:00-11:00

….23:00-00:00

total A B C D

Q1 total NPA airport landings per hour block Q2 Q3 Q4

Total NPA Landings Profile

Dependant upon airport ILS capability and tailwind statistics

Disruption Probability per approach type

Q2 Q3 Q4

NOAA Annual Data

Minima Estimator Tool (MET tool)

NOAA Data Extraction &

Processing tool

Dependant upon published and MET tool estimated DHs, runway visibility, cloud ceiling. This is performed for all approach types and all aircraft approach categories (A, B, C, D)

09:00-10:0010:00-11:00

….23:00-00:00

total A B C D

Q1 Baseline Disruptions per hour block

EFKTLFLC

….…..

Baseline Scenario 1

Total Disruptions

Scenario 2

Total Disruptions

Assumed constant profile throughout quarter based upon sample week

Q3 DisruptionsQ2 Disruptions Q4 Disruptions

The same calculations are repeated for each of the quarters

The same calculations are repeated for each of the years 2004 and 2005 (using the separate NOAA data for each)

Dependant upon the per-movement capability per airport (i.e. number of movements BaroVNAV capable, SBAS capable)

09:00-10:0010:00-11:00

….23:00-00:00

total A B C D

Q1 Scenario 1 Disruptions per hour block

09:00-10:0010:00-11:00

….23:00-00:00

total A B C D

Q1 Scenario 2 Disruptions per hour block

Total Disruptions Profile

Airport Data (general & obstacle)

Published & potential RNAV Decision Heights (DHs)

Accounts for PANS OPS minimum DH requirements

09:0009:2009:50…..

RVR CLG SPD DIR

Meteorological statisticst

P723D003 HELIOS 54 of 162

C Guide to following case study annexes

C.1 Introduction

This section provides an introduction to the following annexes where the benefits analysis for each case study is described in more detail. It outlines the structure of each case study annex and provides some guidance on the analysis performed for each step in order to arrive at the final results.

The case study results tables presented in the main body of the report are derived from these annexes.

ANSP/ airport authority

ICAO code Airport Name # ILS at runway of interest

# runways Worst performing aircraft category

Skyguide LSGG Geneva 2 2 D

Avinor ENTC Tromso 2 1 C

UkSATSE UKFF Simferopol 2 1 D

UKBB Kiev/Borispol 2 1 D

DSNA LFLC Clermont Ferrand 1 1 D

LFBL Bellegarde 1 1 C

LFBZ Biarritz 1 1 C

LFQQ Lille 1 1 D

LFRB Guipavas 1 1 C

Finavia EFKT Kittila 1 1 C

EFTP Tampere-Pirkkala 1 1 C

EFRO Rovaniemi 1 1 C

EFOU Oulu 1 1 C

EFIV Ivalo 1 1 C

CAA Netherlands

EHAM Schiphol 2 6

D

Royal Netherlands Air force EHEH Eindhoven airbase 2 2

C

Table 6 - case study airports

The runway of interest for each case study airport is identified and together with its current Precision Approach (PA) capability. The worst performing aircraft category for each airport is also identified. It is assumed that all RNAV approach types will be developed and introduced for this category.

C.2 Annex structure

The detailed analysis annex for each case study contains the following sections:

� airport overview;

P723D003* HELIOS 55 of 161

� approach minima;

� runway usage;

� airport accessibility gain;

� aircraft landings;

� estimated cost savings.

C.2.1 Airport overview

The first section provides a general description of the airport, its runway configuration, ILS capability and particular reason for interest in RNAV approach capability. The aerodrome chart and obstacle chart6 are also included were available.

C.2.2 Runway approach minima

The current and estimated operational minima are then presented in separate tables for both runway ends of the particular runway in consideration.

The current published minima have been provided by the respective ANSP/airport authority and are used to evaluate the Base case (where no RNAV approach capability is implemented).

The estimated operational minima are resultant from the MET tool analysis and provide Obstacle Clearance Height (OCH) values for LNAV, APV BaroVNAV, SBAS APV I/II and ILS CAT I approach types. They are based upon the provided airport and obstacle data.

Only the first three of these are used in evaluation of the annual cost savings, i.e. Scenario 1 (BaroVNAV approach used where aircraft is capable) and Scenario 2 (BaroVNAV approach is used where aircraft is capable, otherwise a of the business case).

SBAS APV II service is not available but included for comparative purposes with respect to SBAS APV I. It can help illustrate the sensitivity of the final cost savings to a small change in the reduction in operational minima.

Following both tables, a summary of the potential reduction for each runway end is provided in relation to APV BaroVNAV and SBAS APVI minima estimates. This identifies the range of reduction with respect to current NPA minima and the different aircraft approach categories. Additional insight on the operational minima with respect to the airport local obstacle environment is also provided where possible.

Preliminary potential candidates for LPV 200 are also indicated. These have been identified in cases where the minima for SBAS APV I, SBAS APV II and ILS CAT I

6 The Aerodrome Obstacle Chart (AOC) cannot be used as a sole means of understanding the operational minima at each runway end. It is primarily intended for operators to help define their take-off parameters and does not take into account all obstacles (e.g. not extending beyond the sides of the runway).

P723D003* HELIOS 56 of 161

are equal to or less than 200ft. For a more accurate assessment, the MET tool would have to be upgraded to include LPV 200 design criteria.

C.2.3 Runway usage

The local wind conditions are examined as an indicator of a default operational runway end. The average hourly tailwind strength during each quarter is presented for each runway end. Where the tailwind strength is close to or exceeds the threshold 5knts value an aircraft will look to use the other runway end. Of course, this will also be determined by the lower of operational minima available at each runway end.

For the purpose of this analysis, the default operational runway end is fixed per average quarterly hour. Therefore a change can occur on an hourly basis per quarter or indeed per entire quarter. For the case studies considered, there was little ambiguity in the selection of this. In the majority of cases, the default operational runway end changed only on a seasonal basis in response to the dominant wind conditions (exceptions include Kittila airport, Finland or Kiev airport, Ukraine).

C.2.4 Runway accessibility gain

Airport accessibility is defined as the number of hours per quarter during which an aircraft can successfully perform an approach for a given operational minima.

The total number hours of disruption (delay, diversion or cancellation) for each approach type has been determined taking into account the specific minima, hourly cloud ceiling and visibility. The varying level of these across all approach types illustrates the potential gain in runway accessibility. This is shown for both current and potential (MET tool estimated) operational minima for the various approach types and aircraft categories.

This demonstrates the potential gain in capacity for varying reduction in the operational minima specific to the operating environment specific to each runway end. In the analysis, where there is a change in the operational runway end, the corresponding change in disruption probability and therefore runway accessibility will be incorporated.

All the case studies considered investigate the cost savings for a single runway airport or for a particular runway only (with the appropriate share of total airport movements). Therefore within this context, the terms airport and runway accessibility gain are synonymous.

There is a subtle distinction between accessibility gain and capacity gain. Accessibility gain is a potential benefit where more aircraft could perform a successful approach owing to the available operational minima and weather conditions at the particular time of approach. Capacity gain is the correlation of this with actual aircraft movements and therefore the achieved benefit in practise more aircraft performing a successful approach in taking advantage of the reduced minima.

C.2.5 Runway landing movements

The total quarterly aircraft movements per hour are illustrated for the particular runway of interest. The variation of this combined with the airport ILS capability (and availability), runway usage and accessibility gain calculations will determine the number of aircraft disruptions for each approach type.

P723D003* HELIOS 57 of 161

C.2.6 Estimated cost savings

The number of aircraft disruptions and corresponding costs are calculated per quarter and the resultant annual values shown here for each of the defined scenarios:

� Base case: No RNAV approach is implemented, i.e. no change in current day situation.

� Scenario 1: BaroVNAV approach is implemented and available to all aircraft which are BaroVNAV capable.

� Scenario 2: BaroVNAV and SBAS approaches are used by all aircraft. Aircraft which are not BaroVNAV equipped would upgrade to SBAS APV I.

The operational minima for the worst performing aircraft at each airport are assumed for all approach types. For example, where the SBAS APV I minima are 209, 219, 229 and 238 for aircraft categories A, B, C and D respectively for an airport with a 0%, 10%, 70% and 20% split in movements for the same categories, a minima of 238ft is used.

The final estimated cost savings are derived from a reduction in the number of disruptions with respect to the Base case experienced during a typical year at current traffic levels. It is based upon the correlation between airport accessibility gain and actual aircraft movement statistics.

An additional Scenario 3 case is also shown to help demonstrate the sensitivity in final cost savings to a delta in the operational minima reduction. This is the same as Scenario 2, albeit aircraft which are not BaroVNAV capable will equip to SBAS APV II rather than SBAS APV I capability.

P723D003* HELIOS 58 of 161

D LSGG benefits analysis

D.1 Overview

This annex provides detailed analysis for Geneva (LSGG) in Switzerland. This has one concrete runway with ILS at both runway ends and an additional grass runway which is VFR aircraft only.

This analysis investigates sole use of the ILS equipped runway. RNAV approach is envisaged as a backup to ILS. The ILS at runway LSGG05 was under replacement in 2008 requiring the recalculation of approach minima using the ICAO CRM software tool. This opportunity was taken to use the same terrain and obstacle database for use with the MET tool.

Figure 11 - LSGG airport chart

P723D003* HELIOS 59 of 161

The surrounding obstacle environment of LSGG is quite demanding due to the close proximity of high terrain like the Jura mountain chain.

D.2 Approach minima

The OCH for both current and MET estimated approach types are presented below7.

Geneva – LSGG05

Current OCH (ft)

Approach Type CAT A CAT B CAT C CAT D

ILS CAT I 187 197 204 213

LLZ (/DME) 433

VOR 479

Table 7 – LSGG05 OCH for current approaches

Geneva – LSGG05

MET estimated OCH (ft)


ILS CAT I 223 233 243 253

SBAS APVI 263 273 282 292

SBAS APVII 240 250 259 269

APV BaroVNAV 407

LNAV 437

Table 8 – LSGG05 OCH using MET tool

This runway end has a 250ft minimum decision height (PA capable). Therefore:

� APV BaroVNAV offers a slight reduction (30-70ft) over existing NPA minima;

� SBAS APV I/II offers significant reduction (140-220ft) over existing NPA minima;

� SBAS APVII offers negligible (10-20ft) improvement over SBAS APVI across all aircraft categories.

LPV200 is not considered possible from these values.

D.3 Runway usage

The hourly variation of average tailwind strength per quarter for this runway end is shown below.

7 Only operational minima for this runway end were provided

P723D003* HELIOS 60 of 161

-10.00

-8.00

-6.00

-4.00

-2.00

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

00:0

0-01

:00

01:0

0-02

:00

02:0

0-03

:00

03:0

0-04

:00

04:0

0-05

:00

05:0

0-06

:00

06:0

0-07

:00

07:0

0-08

:00

08:0

0-09

:00

09:0

0-10

:00

10:0

0-11

:00

11:0

0-12

:00

12:0

0-13

:00

13:0

0-14

:00

14:0

0-15

:00

15:0

0-16

:00

16:0

0-17

:00

17:0

0-18

:00

18:0

0-19

:00

19:0

0-20

:00

20:0

0-21

:00

21:0

0-22

:00

22:0

0-23

:00

23:0

0-00

:00

Hour

Ave

rage

spe

ed (

kts)

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Figure 12 - LSGG05 average tailwind strength

The average tailwind strength remains far below the 5knts threshold level.

D.4 Airport accessibility gain

The airport accessibility gain per quarter for LSGG05 end is shown below.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

NDBVOR

LOC

LNAV

ILSCATI

ILSCATII

LNAV

BaroVNAV

SBASAPVI_A

SBASAPVII_A

SBASAPVI_B

SBASAPVII_B

SBASAPVI_C

SBASAPVII_C

SBASAPVI_D

SBASAPVII_D

Approach type

Dis

rupt

ion

hour

s

Q4

Q3

Q2

Q1

Figure 13 - LSGG05 disruption hours

SBAS APV I/II demonstrates a potential gain in the order of 40 hours over current NPA minima. There is negligible gain from the introduction of APV BaroVNAV capability.

P723D003* HELIOS 61 of 161

D.5 Aircraft landings

The hourly profile of total aircraft landings per quarter for the selected runway is shown below.

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

00:00

-01:00

02:00

-03:00

04:00

-05:00

06:00

-07:00

08:00

-09:00

10:00

-11:00

12:00

-13:00

14:00

-15:00

16:00

-17:00

18:00

-19:00

20:00

-21:00

22:00

-23:00

Hour block

Num

ber

of la

ndin

gs

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Figure 14 - LSGG sample quarterly movements

This is a high traffic airport with peak landing rates reaching 1,800 per hour. Little variation is seen per quarter. Taking into account ILS capability and tailwind statistics, there is an estimated 123 (<1%) non-ILS landings per year.

D.6 Estimated cost savings

The estimated annual aircraft disruptions and corresponding cost for the runway of interest are presented below.

Baseline Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3

Annual number of disruptions 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0

Annual cost of disruptions (€) 5,300 5,100 4,600 4,500

Table 9 – LSGG annual disruptions

The resultant cost savings with respect to the baseline are:

Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3

Annual reduction in disruptions 0.0 0.2 0.2

Annual cost savings (€) 200 700 800

Table 10 – LSGG annual benefits

Negligible cost savings are estimated for the introduction of RNAV approach.

The local wind strength at LSGG is low and so tailwind conditions have little operational impact on the availability of ILS procedures. Therefore any potential

P723D003* HELIOS 62 of 161

benefit from a reduction in minima is largely only realisable during periods where the ILS itself is out of service. For an airport with ILS installed at both runway ends the occurrence probability of this is extremely low.

P723D003* HELIOS 63 of 161

E ENTC benefits analysis

E.1 Overview

This annex provides detailed analysis for Tromso (ENTC) in Norway. This is a single runway airport with ILS installed at both runway ends.

RNAV approach capability is seen as a means of back in the event of an ILS outage. This case study however highlights one of the limitations of the MET tool in that it does not take into account obstacles in the intermediate approach area in estimating the approach OCH values.

In the case of ENTC the most significant obstacle is located just prior to the Final Approach Fix (FAP). Without using the freedom of design of the intermediate approach segment the OCH values are calculated in a pessimistic manner.

Figure 15 - ENTC aerodrome chart

P723D003* HELIOS 64 of 161

The Aerodrome Obstacle Chart (AOC) is also presented below.

Figure 16 - ENTC01 obstacle chart

Figure 17 - ENTC19 obstacle chart

P723D003* HELIOS 65 of 161

E.2 Approach minima

The OCH for both current and MET estimated approach types are presented below.

For runway end ENTC01:

Tromso – ENTC01

Current OCH (ft)


ILS CAT I 588 595 610 625

LLZ (/DME) 690 710 740 760

Table 11 – ENTC01 OCH for current approaches

Tromso – ENTC01



ILS CAT I 522 532 542 552

SBAS APVI 3105 3115 3125 3135

SBAS APVII 3105 3115 3125 3135

APV BaroVNAV 767

LNAV 1441

Table 12 – ENTC01 OCH using MET tool

For runway end ENTC19:

Tromso – ENTC19

Current OCH (ft)


ILS CAT I 282 329 347 1041

LLZ (/DME) 850 1050

Table 13 – ENTC19 OCH for current approaches

P723D003* HELIOS 66 of 161

Tromso – ENTC19



ILS CAT I 604 614 624 634

SBAS APVI 3130 3140 3150 3160

SBAS APVII 3130 3140 3150 3160

APV BaroVNAV 767

LNAV 1766

Table 14 – ENTC19 OCH using MET tool

This case study highlights one of the limitations of the MET tool in that it does not evaluate an Intermediate approach area (or more specifically, with the appropriate 150m Minimum Obstacle Clearance (MOC) for LNAV or BaroVNAV). This means the required altitude at the Final Approach Fix (FAF) or Final Approach Point (FAP) is not always appropriately identified, affecting the estimated OCH values.

In the case of ENTC the most significant obstacle is located just prior to the FAP. The MET tool therefore penalises the final OCH values in not taking into account additional freedom of design in respect of the intermediate approach, for example, employing a steeper descent path.

As a result only APV BaroVNAV for ENTC19 is seen to offer any reduction (80ft) over existing NPA minima. The analysis which follows only investigates this approach.

E.3 Runway usage

The hourly variation of average tailwind strength per quarter for each runway end is shown below.

-10.00

-8.00

-6.00

-4.00

-2.00

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

00:0

0-01

:00

01:0

0-02

:00

02:0

0-03

:00

03:0

0-04

:00

04:0

0-05

:00

05:0

0-06

:00

06:0

0-07

:00

07:0

0-08

:00

08:0

0-09

:00

09:0

0-10

:00

10:0

0-11

:00

11:0

0-12

:00

12:0

0-13

:00

13:0

0-14

:00

14:0

0-15

:00

15:0

0-16

:00

16:0

0-17

:00

17:0

0-18

:00

18:0

0-19

:00

19:0

0-20

:00

20:0

0-21

:00

21:0

0-22

:00

22:0

0-23

:00

23:0

0-00

:00

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Figure 18 – ENTC01 average tailwind strength

P723D003* HELIOS 67 of 161

-10.00

-8.00

-6.00

-4.00

-2.00

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

00:0

0-01

:00

01:0

0-02

:00

02:0

0-03

:00

03:0

0-04

:00

04:0

0-05

:00

05:0

0-06

:00

06:0

0-07

:00

07:0

0-08

:00

08:0

0-09

:00

09:0

0-10

:00

10:0

0-11

:00

11:0

0-12

:00

12:0

0-13

:00

13:0

0-14

:00

14:0

0-15

:00

15:0

0-16

:00

16:0

0-17

:00

17:0

0-18

:00

18:0

0-19

:00

19:0

0-20

:00

20:0

0-21

:00

21:0

0-22

:00

22:0

0-23

:00

23:0

0-00

:00

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Figure 19 – ENTC19 average tailwind strength

The preference based on this will be to use ENTC19 for all quarters. The operational minima are also lower for ENTC19 and so it is assumed to be the default operational runway end.

E.4 Airport accessibility gain

The airport accessibility gain per quarter for ENTC19 is shown below.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

NDBVOR

LLZ/

DME

LNAV

ILSCATI

ILSCATII

LNAV

BaroVNAV

SBASAPVI_A

SBASAPVII_A

SBASAPVI_B

SBASAPVII_B

SBASAPVI_C

SBASAPVII_C

SBASAPVI_D

SBASAPVII_D

Approach type

Dis

rupt

ion

hour

s

Q4

Q3

Q2

Q1

Figure 20 - ENTC19 disruption hours

APV BaroVNAV demonstrates a slight potential gain in airport capacity over current NPA minima.

P723D003* HELIOS 68 of 161

E.5 Aircraft landings

The total hourly profile of aircraft landings per quarter is shown below.

0.00

100.00

200.00

300.00

400.00

500.00

600.00

700.00

00:00

-01:

00

01:00

-02:

00

02:00

-03:

00

03:00

-04:

00

04:00

-05:

00

05:00

-06:

00

06:00

-07:

00

07:00

-08:

00

08:00

-09:

00

09:00

-10:

00

10:00

-11:

00

11:00

-12:

00

12:00

-13:

00

13:00

-14:

00

14:00

-15:

00

15:00

-16:

00

16:00

-17:

00

17:00

-18:

00

18:00

-19:

00

19:00

-20:

00

20:00

-21:

00

21:00

-22:

00

22:00

-23:

00

23:00

-00:

00

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Figure 21 - ENTC quarterly landings

Traffic levels remain relatively constant throughout the year with landings typically peaking at midday. Taking into account ILS capability and tailwind statistics, there is only an estimated 46 (<1%) non-ILS landings per year.

E.6 Estimated cost savings





Table 15 – ENTC19 annual disruptions



Annual reduction in disruptions 0.1 _ _

Annual cost savings (€) 200 _ _

Table 16 – ENTC19 annual benefits

Negligible cost savings are estimated for the introduction of RNAV approach capability.

Irrespective of the limitation of the MET tool in this case, the low number of non-ILS landings would nonetheless lead to a negligible level of annual cost saving.

P723D003* HELIOS 69 of 161

F UKFF benefits analysis

F.1 Overview

This annex provides detailed analysis for Simferopol (UKFF) in Ukraine. This is a single runway airport with one ILS installation at runway end 190 degrees (UKFF19).

The introduction of RNAV approach is being considered in an effort to extend the existing RNAV capability for the preceding phases of flight. This case study demonstrates a seasonal and hourly change in the default operational runway end during the analysis period.

Figure 22 - UKFF airport chart

P723D003* HELIOS 70 of 161

F.2 Approach minima


For the runway end UKFF01:

Simferopol –UKFF01

Current OCH (ft)


ILS CAT I 165

NDB 280

VOR 380

Table 17 – UKFF01 OCH for current approaches

Simferopol – UKFF01



ILS CAT I 165 175 185 195

SBAS APVI 181 191 201 210

SBAS APVII 181 191 201 210

APV BaroVNAV 249

LNAV 490

Table 18 – UKFF01 OCH using MET tool

All APVs for this runway end will have a 250ft minimum decision height (PA capable). In summary:

� APV BaroVNAV offers significant reduction (30-130ft) over existing NPA minima;

� SBAS APV I/II offers a similar reduction (30-130ft) over existing NPA minima.

LPV200 may be possible for aircraft categories A and B from these values.

For the runway end UKFF19:

Simferopol –UKFF19

Current OCH (ft)


ILS CAT I 164

VOR 345

NDB 345

Table 19 – UKFF19 OCH for current approaches

P723D003* HELIOS 71 of 161

Simferopol – UKFF19



ILS CAT I 164 174 184 194

SBAS APVI 146 156 166 176

SBAS APVII 132 142 151 161

APV BaroVNAV 247

LNAV 325

Table 20 – UKFF19 OCH using MET tool


� APV BaroVNAV offers significant reduction (100ft) over existing NPA minima;

� SBAS APV I/II offers a similar reduction (100ft) over existing NPA minima.

LPV200 may be possible for all aircraft categories from these values.

F.3 Runway usage


-10.00

-8.00

-6.00

-4.00

-2.00

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

00:0

0-01

:00

01:0

0-02

:00

02:0

0-03

:00

03:0

0-04

:00

04:0

0-05

:00

05:0

0-06

:00

06:0

0-07

:00

07:0

0-08

:00

08:0

0-09

:00

09:0

0-10

:00

10:0

0-11

:00

11:0

0-12

:00

12:0

0-13

:00

13:0

0-14

:00

14:0

0-15

:00

15:0

0-16

:00

16:0

0-17

:00

17:0

0-18

:00

18:0

0-19

:00

19:0

0-20

:00

20:0

0-21

:00

21:0

0-22

:00

22:0

0-23

:00

23:0

0-00

:00

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Figure 23 – UKFF01 average tailwind strength

P723D003* HELIOS 72 of 161

-10.00

-8.00

-6.00

-4.00

-2.00

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

00:0

0-01

:00

01:0

0-02

:00

02:0

0-03

:00

03:0

0-04

:00

04:0

0-05

:00

05:0

0-06

:00

06:0

0-07

:00

07:0

0-08

:00

08:0

0-09

:00

09:0

0-10

:00

10:0

0-11

:00

11:0

0-12

:00

12:0

0-13

:00

13:0

0-14

:00

14:0

0-15

:00

15:0

0-16

:00

16:0

0-17

:00

17:0

0-18

:00

18:0

0-19

:00

19:0

0-20

:00

20:0

0-21

:00

21:0

0-22

:00

22:0

0-23

:00

23:0

0-00

:00

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Figure 24 – UKFF19average tailwind strength

The preference based on this will be to use UKFF01 for all of Q3, 4 and the afternoon hours of Q2. UKFF19 would then be used for all of Q1 and the morning and evening hours of Q2.

Both runway ends are equipped with ILS and so the operational runway ends are selected for the benefits analysis in this respect.

F.4 Airport accessibility gain

The airport accessibility gain per quarter for UKFF01 is shown below.

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

NDBVOR

LOC

LNAV

ILSCATI

ILSCATII

LNAV

BaroVNAV

SBASAPVI_A

SBASAPVII_A

SBASAPVI_B

SBASAPVII_B

SBASAPVI_C

SBASAPVII_C

SBASAPVI_D

SBASAPVII_D

Approach type

Dis

rupt

ion

hour

s

Q4

Q3

Q2

Q1

Figure 25 - UKFF01 disruption hours

P723D003* HELIOS 73 of 161

SBAS APV I/II approach demonstrates a significant potential gain in airport capacity (200-400 additional hours) over current NPAs. APV BaroVNAV offers a less significant potential gain (100-300 additional hours).

The airport accessibility gain per quarter for UKFF19 is shown below.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

NDBVOR

LOC

LNAV

ILSCATI

ILSCATII

LNAV

BaroVNAV

SBASAPVI_A

SBASAPVII_A

SBASAPVI_B

SBASAPVII_B

SBASAPVI_C

SBASAPVII_C

SBASAPVI_D

SBASAPVII_D

Approach type

Dis

rupt

ion

hour

s

Q4

Q3

Q2

Q1

Figure 26 - UKFF19 disruption hours

The trend in potential gain is similar for UKFF19 albeit slightly less.

5.5 Aircraft landings


0.00

100.00

200.00

300.00

400.00

500.00

600.00

700.00

00:00

-01:

00

01:00

-02:

00

02:00

-03:

00

03:00

-04:

00

04:00

-05:

00

05:00

-06:

00

06:00

-07:

00

07:00

-08:

00

08:00

-09:

00

09:00

-10:

00

10:00

-11:

00

11:00

-12:

00

12:00

-13:

00

13:00

-14:

00

14:00

-15:

00

15:00

-16:

00

16:00

-17:

00

17:00

-18:

00

18:00

-19:

00

19:00

-20:

00

20:00

-21:

00

21:00

-22:

00

22:00

-23:

00

23:00

-00:

00

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Figure 27 - UKFF quarterly movements

P723D003* HELIOS 74 of 161

Traffic levels are highest for Q3 with a significant reduction seen during Q4 and Q1. Taking into account ILS capability and tailwind statistics, there is only an estimated 14 (<1%) non-ILS landings per year.

F.5 Estimated cost savings


UKFF19 (All of Q1,part of Q2)



Annual cost of disruptions (€) 1,200 700 600 600

Table 21 – UKFF19 annual disruptions





Table 22 – UKFF19 annual benefits

UKFF01 (Part of Q2, All of Q3,4)




Table 23 – UKFF01 annual disruptions





Table 24 – UKFF19 annual benefits

For all quarters

The total estimated annual aircraft disruptions and corresponding cost UKFF are presented below.

P723D003* HELIOS 75 of 161




Table 25 – UKFF annual disruptions




Annual cost savings (€) 700 1,000 1,000

Table 26 - UKFF annual benefits

Negligible cost savings are estimated for the implementation of RNAV approach capability.

Whilst the reduction in operational minima is significant for both BaroVNAV and SBAS APV I/II, the dual ILS capability results in few non-ILS landings. In spite of varying tailwind conditions, the cloud ceiling and runway visibility are generally favourable during times of non-ILS landings and so tend to attenuate any potential benefit.

An extension of the already existing RNAV approach phase for this airport may not be warranted on the basis of reduced aircraft disruptions alone.

P723D003* HELIOS 76 of 161

G UKBB benefits analysis

G.1 Overview

This annex provides detailed analysis for Kiev/Borispol (UKBB) in Ukraine. This is a single runway airport with ILS installed at both runway ends.

The introduction of RNAV approach is being considered in an effort to extend the existing RNAV capability for the preceding phases of flight. This case study demonstrates a seasonal and hourly change in the default operational runway end during the analysis period.

Figure 28 - UKBB airport chart

P723D003* HELIOS 77 of 161

G.2 Approach minima


For runway end UKBB18:

Boryspil –UKBB18

Current OCH (ft)


ILS CAT I 140

VOR 380

NDB 380

Table 27 – UKBB18 OCH for current approaches

Boryspil – UKBB18



ILS CAT I 140 150 160 170

SBAS APVI 226 236 246 256

SBAS APVII 134 204 214 224

APV BaroVNAV 405

LNAV 336

Table 28 – UKBB18 OCH using MET tool

All APVs for this runway end will have a 250ft minimum decision height (PA capable). Therefore:

� APV BaroVNAV does not offer any reduction over existing NPA minima;

� SBAS APV I/II offers some reduction (130ft) over existing NPA minima.


For runway end UKBB36:

Boryspil –UKBB36

Current OCH (ft)


ILS CAT I 175

VOR 360

NDB 360

Table 29 – UKBB36 OCH for current approaches

P723D003* HELIOS 78 of 161

Boryspil – UKBB36



ILS CAT I 175 185 195 205

SBAS APVI 201 210 220 230

SBAS APVII 176 186 196 206

APV BaroVNAV 296

LNAV 394

Table 30 – UKBB36 OCH using MET tool


� APV BaroVNAV offers little reduction (60ft) over existing NPA minima.

� SBAS APV I/II offers some reduction (110ft) over existing NPA minima.

LPV200 may be possible for category A from these values.

G.3 Runway usage


-10.00

-8.00

-6.00

-4.00

-2.00

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

00:0

0-01

:00

01:0

0-02

:00

02:0

0-03

:00

03:0

0-04

:00

04:0

0-05

:00

05:0

0-06

:00

06:0

0-07

:00

07:0

0-08

:00

08:0

0-09

:00

09:0

0-10

:00

10:0

0-11

:00

11:0

0-12

:00

12:0

0-13

:00

13:0

0-14

:00

14:0

0-15

:00

15:0

0-16

:00

16:0

0-17

:00

17:0

0-18

:00

18:0

0-19

:00

19:0

0-20

:00

20:0

0-21

:00

21:0

0-22

:00

22:0

0-23

:00

23:0

0-00

:00

Hour

Ave

rage

spe

ed (

kts)

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Figure 29 – UKBB18 average tailwind strength

P723D003* HELIOS 79 of 161

-10.00

-8.00

-6.00

-4.00

-2.00

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

00:0

0-01

:00

01:0

0-02

:00

02:0

0-03

:00

03:0

0-04

:00

04:0

0-05

:00

05:0

0-06

:00

06:0

0-07

:00

07:0

0-08

:00

08:0

0-09

:00

09:0

0-10

:00

10:0

0-11

:00

11:0

0-12

:00

12:0

0-13

:00

13:0

0-14

:00

14:0

0-15

:00

15:0

0-16

:00

16:0

0-17

:00

17:0

0-18

:00

18:0

0-19

:00

19:0

0-20

:00

20:0

0-21

:00

21:0

0-22

:00

22:0

0-23

:00

23:0

0-00

:00

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Figure 30 – UKBB36 average tailwind strength

The preference based on this will be to use UKBB36 for all of Q3 and Q4 and part of Q2 (the morning and evening hours) and UKBB18 for all of Q1 and part of Q2 (the midday hours).

The operational minima for both runway ends are approximately the same therefore the default operational runway ends are selected in this respect for the benefits analysis.

G.4 Airport accessibility gain

The airport accessibility gain for UKBB36 is shown below.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

NDBVOR

LOCLNAV

ILSCATI

ILSCATII

LNAV

BaroVNAV

SBASAPVI_A

SBASAPVII_A

SBASAPVI_B

SBASAPVII_B

SBASAPVI_C

SBASAPVII_C

SBASAPVI_D

SBASAPVII_D

Approach type

Dis

rupt

ion

hour

s

Q4

Q3

Q2

Q1

Figure 31 - UKBB36 disruption hours

P723D003* HELIOS 80 of 161

SBAS APV I/II approach demonstrates some potential gain in airport capacity (150 additional hours) over current NPAs. APV BaroVNAV offers only small potential gain (50 additional hours).

The airport accessibility gain for UKBB18 is shown below.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

NDBVOR

LOC

LNAV

ILSCATI

ILSCATII

LNAV

BaroVNAV

SBASAPVI_A

SBASAPVII_A

SBASAPVI_B

SBASAPVII_B

SBASAPVI_C

SBASAPVII_C

SBASAPVI_D

SBASAPVII_D

Approach type

Dis

rupt

ion

hour

s

Q4

Q3

Q2

Q1

Figure 32 - UKBB18 disruption hours

SBAS APV I/II approach demonstrates some potential gain in airport capacity (100 additional hours) over current NPAs. APV BaroVNAV offers negligible potential gain.

G.5 Aircraft landings


0.00

200.00

400.00

600.00

800.00

1000.00

1200.00

1400.00

1600.00

1800.00

2000.00

00:00

-01:

00

01:00

-02:

00

02:00

-03:

00

03:00

-04:

00

04:00

-05:

00

05:00

-06:

00

06:00

-07:

00

07:00

-08:

00

08:00

-09:

00

09:00

-10:

00

10:00

-11:

00

11:00

-12:

00

12:00

-13:

00

13:00

-14:

00

14:00

-15:

00

15:00

-16:

00

16:00

-17:

00

17:00

-18:

00

18:00

-19:

00

19:00

-20:

00

20:00

-21:

00

21:00

-22:

00

22:00

-23:

00

23:00

-00:

00

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

P723D003* HELIOS 81 of 161

Figure 33 - UKBB quarterly movements

Traffic levels remain the same for much of the year. The majority of landings occur in the early morning. Taking into account ILS capability and tailwind statistics, there is only an estimated 56 (<1%) non-ILS landings per year.

G.6 Estimated cost savings

The estimated annual aircraft disruptions and corresponding cost for the two runway ends are presented below.

UKBB18 (All of Q1, part of Q2)


Annual number of disruptions 4 3 3 3


Table 31 – UKBB18 annual disruptions




Annual cost savings (€) 2,400 3,700 3,800

Table 32 – UKBB18 annual benefits

UKBB36 (Part of Q2, all of Q3, 4)




Table 33 –UKBB36 annual disruptions



Annual reduction in disruptions 1 1 1


Table 34 – UKBB36 annual benefits

For all quarters

The total estimated annual aircraft disruptions and corresponding cost UKBB are presented below.

P723D003* HELIOS 82 of 161




Table 35 – UKBB annual disruptions





Table 36 – UKBB annual benefits

There is a low estimated level of annual cost savings for the implementation of RNAV approach capability.

The expressed interest of UkSATSE in proposing this case study was to investigate the benefit of extending the already existing RNAV approach phase for this airport. While showing some potential, this may not be warranted on the basis of reduced aircraft disruptions alone.

P723D003* HELIOS 83 of 161

H EHEH benefits analysis

H.1 Overview

This annex provides detailed analysis for Eindhoven Airbase (EHEH) in Amsterdam. This is a dual runway airport with ILS capabilities at all runway ends. One runway is dedicated entirely for civilian use and the other for military use.

This analysis focuses on the civilian use runway EHEH04-22 where RNAV approach is seen as a backup for ILS. (Under military use it will also be beneficial for training purposes)

Figure 34 - EHEH aerodrome chart

P723D003* HELIOS 84 of 161


Figure 35 - EHEH obstacle chart

H.2 Approach minima


For the runway end EHEH04:

Eindhoven – EHEH04

Current OCH (ft)


ILS CAT I 261

TACAN 420

NDB 490

Table 37 – EHEH04 OCH for current approaches

P723D003* HELIOS 85 of 161




ILS CAT I 178 187 197 207

SBAS APVI 185 195 205 215

SBAS APVII 208 218 228 237

APV BaroVNAV 345

LNAV 523

Table 38 – EHEH04 OCH using MET tool

All APVs for this runway end will have a 250ft minimum decision height (PA capable). Therefore

� APV BaroVNAV offers some reduction (70-140ft) over current NPA minima;

� SBAS APV I/II offers significant reduction (170-240ft) over current NPA minima

LPV200 may be possible for category A aircraft from these values.

For the runway end EHEH22:


Current OCH (ft)


ILS CAT I 267

TACAN 500

NDB 500

Table 39 – EHEH22 OCH for current approaches




ILS CAT I 180 190 200 210

SBAS APVI 188 198 208 217

SBAS APVII 216 226 236 246

APV BaroVNAV 353

LNAV 430

Table 40 – EHEH22 OCH using MET tool


� APV BaroVNAV offers significant reduction (150ft) over current NPA minima;

� SBAS APV I/II offers significant reduction (250ft) over current NPA minima

P723D003* HELIOS 86 of 161


H.3 Runway usage


-10

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

00:0

0-01

:00

01:0

0-02

:00

02:0

0-03

:00

03:0

0-04

:00

04:0

0-05

:00

05:0

0-06

:00

06:0

0-07

:00

07:0

0-08

:00

08:0

0-09

:00

09:0

0-10

:00

10:0

0-11

:00

11:0

0-12

:00

12:0

0-13

:00

13:0

0-14

:00

14:0

0-15

:00

15:0

0-16

:00

16:0

0-17

:00

17:0

0-18

:00

18:0

0-19

:00

19:0

0-20

:00

20:0

0-21

:00

21:0

0-22

:00

22:0

0-23

:00

23:0

0-00

:00

Hour

Ave

rage

spe

ed (

kts)

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Table 41 – EHEH04 average tailwind strength

-10

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

00:0

0-01

:00

01:0

0-02

:00

02:0

0-03

:00

03:0

0-04

:00

04:0

0-05

:00

05:0

0-06

:00

06:0

0-07

:00

07:0

0-08

:00

08:0

0-09

:00

09:0

0-10

:00

10:0

0-11

:00

11:0

0-12

:00

12:0

0-13

:00

13:0

0-14

:00

14:0

0-15

:00

15:0

0-16

:00

16:0

0-17

:00

17:0

0-18

:00

18:0

0-19

:00

19:0

0-20

:00

20:0

0-21

:00

21:0

0-22

:00

22:0

0-23

:00

23:0

0-00

:00

Hour

Ave

rage

spe

ed (

kts)

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Table 42 – EHEH22 average tailwind strength

P723D003* HELIOS 87 of 161

The preference based on this will be to use EHEH22 for all quarters and it is selected as the default operational runway end for the benefits analysis.

5.6 Airport accessibility gain

The airport accessibility gain per quarter for the preferred runway end is shown below.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

NDBVOR

LOC

LNAV

ILSCATI

ILSCATII

LNAV

BaroVNAV

SBASAPVI_A

SBASAPVII_A

SBASAPVI_B

SBASAPVII_B

SBASAPVI_C

SBASAPVII_C

SBASAPVI_D

SBASAPVII_D

Approach type

Dis

rupt

ion

hour

s

Q4

Q3

Q2

Q1

Figure 36 – EHEH04 disruption hours

SBAS APV I/II demonstrates a significant potential gain in airport capacity (300-400 additional hours) when compared to current NPAs. APV BaroVNAV offers a lower potential gain in the region of 100-200 undisrupted hours.

P723D003* HELIOS 88 of 161

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

NDBVOR

LOC

LNAV

ILSCATI

ILSCATII

LNAV

BaroVNAV

SBASAPVI_A

SBASAPVII_A

SBASAPVI_B

SBASAPVII_B

SBASAPVI_C

SBASAPVII_C

SBASAPVI_D

SBASAPVII_D

Approach type

Dis

rupt

ion

hour

sQ4

Q3

Q2

Q1

Table 43 - EHEH22 annual disruption hours per appro ach type

A near identical capacity gain is exhibited for EHEH22.

H.4 Runway landings

The total hourly profile of aircraft landings per quarter for the preferred runway end is shown below.

0.00

50.00

100.00

150.00

200.00

250.00

300.00

350.00

400.00

00:0

0-01

:00

01:0

0-02

:00

02:0

0-03

:00

03:0

0-04

:00

04:0

0-05

:00

05:0

0-06

:00

06:0

0-07

:00

07:0

0-08

:00

08:0

0-09

:00

09:0

0-10

:00

10:0

0-11

:00

11:0

0-12

:00

12:0

0-13

:00

13:0

0-14

:00

14:0

0-15

:00

15:0

0-16

:00

16:0

0-17

:00

17:0

0-18

:00

18:0

0-19

:00

19:0

0-20

:00

20:0

0-21

:00

21:0

0-22

:00

22:0

0-23

:00

23:0

0-00

:00

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Table 44 - EHEH quarterly landings

P723D003* HELIOS 89 of 161

Traffic levels remain generally the same throughout all quarters. Taking into account ILS capability and tailwind statistics, there is an estimated 23 (<1%) non-ILS landings per year.

H.5 Estimated cost savings





Table 45 – EHEH annual disruptions





Table 46 – EHEH annual benefits

There is negligible annual benefit with the implementation of RNAV approach.

Whilst there is significant reduction in operational minima, the low number of non-ILS landings means there is little potential for cost savings in practise.

P723D003* HELIOS 90 of 161

I LFLC benefits analysis

I.1 Overview

This annex provides detailed analysis for Clermont Ferrand (LFLC) in France. This is a single runway airport with one ILS installation at runway end 260 degrees.

The introduction of RNAV approach capability is seen as a backup to ILS. This case study highlights the limitation of the MET tool in respect of its sensitivity to the location of the controlling obstacle, in this case found within the missed approach segment.

Figure 37 - LFLC airport chart

P723D003* HELIOS 91 of 161

The Aerodrome Obstacle Chart (AOC) is also presented below. The airport is constrained to operations using the LFLC26 runway end only due to a mountain range on the other side.

Figure 38 - LFLC obstacle chart

I.2 Approach minima

The OCH for both current and MET estimated approach types for LFLC26 are presented below.

Clermont – LFLC26

Current OCH (ft)


ILS CAT II 280

ILS CAT I 410

LOC 440

VOR 500

Table 47 – LFLC26 OCH for current approaches

P723D003* HELIOS 92 of 161

Clermont – LFLC26



ILS CAT I 132 142 151 161

SBAS APVI 168 178 188 198

SBAS APVII 136 146 156 166

APV BaroVNAV 473

LNAV 728

Table 48 – LFLC26 OCH using MET tool

This case study highlights one of the limitations of the MET tool in that it only assess the final-intermediate Missed Approach (MA). This is reasonable for LNAV and APV BaroVNAV however there is an area of the W, X (left) and X (right) that has to be analysed prior to the Final Approach Point (FAP) for SBAS APV I/II and ILS approaches.

In the particular case of the obstacle environment of LFLC, this results in over-optimistic results for SBAS APV I/II and ILS CAT I.

All APVs will have a 250ft minimum decision height (PA capable). In summary:

� APV BaroVNAV offers neglible if any reduction over existing NPA minima;

� SBAS APV I/II offers significant reduction (160-250ft) over existing NPA minima.


I.3 Runway usage


-10.00

-8.00

-6.00

-4.00

-2.00

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

00:0

0-01

:00

01:0

0-02

:00

02:0

0-03

:00

03:0

0-04

:00

04:0

0-05

:00

05:0

0-06

:00

06:0

0-07

:00

07:0

0-08

:00

08:0

0-09

:00

09:0

0-10

:00

10:0

0-11

:00

11:0

0-12

:00

12:0

0-13

:00

13:0

0-14

:00

14:0

0-15

:00

15:0

0-16

:00

16:0

0-17

:00

17:0

0-18

:00

18:0

0-19

:00

19:0

0-20

:00

20:0

0-21

:00

21:0

0-22

:00

22:0

0-23

:00

23:0

0-00

:00

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Figure 39 – LFLC08 average tailwind strength

P723D003* HELIOS 93 of 161

-10.00

-8.00

-6.00

-4.00

-2.00

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

00:0

0-01

:00

01:0

0-02

:00

02:0

0-03

:00

03:0

0-04

:00

04:0

0-05

:00

05:0

0-06

:00

06:0

0-07

:00

07:0

0-08

:00

08:0

0-09

:00

09:0

0-10

:00

10:0

0-11

:00

11:0

0-12

:00

12:0

0-13

:00

13:0

0-14

:00

14:0

0-15

:00

15:0

0-16

:00

16:0

0-17

:00

17:0

0-18

:00

18:0

0-19

:00

19:0

0-20

:00

20:0

0-21

:00

21:0

0-22

:00

22:0

0-23

:00

23:0

0-00

:00

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Figure 40 – LFLC26 average tailwind strength

Tailwind conditions are low throughout the year. They can be expected to have little impact on the LFLC26 PA availability.

I.4 Airport accessibility gain

The airport accessibility gain per quarter for the LFLC26 is shown below.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

NDBVOR

LOC

LNAV

ILSCATI

ILSCATII

LNAV

BaroVNAV

SBASAPVI_A

SBASAPVII_A

SBASAPVI_B

SBASAPVII_B

SBASAPVI_C

SBASAPVII_C

SBASAPVI_D

SBASAPVII_D

Approach type

Dis

rupt

ion

hour

s

Q4

Q3

Q2

Q1

Figure 41 - LFLC26 disruption hours

SBAS APV I/II approach demonstrates some potential gain in airport capacity (100 additional hours) over current NPAs. APV BaroVNAV does not offer any potential gain in capacity.

P723D003* HELIOS 94 of 161

I.5 Aircraft landings


0.00

100.00

200.00

300.00

400.00

500.00

600.00

700.00

00:00

-01:

00

01:00

-02:

00

02:00

-03:

00

03:00

-04:

00

04:00

-05:

00

05:00

-06:

00

06:00

-07:

00

07:00

-08:

00

08:00

-09:

00

09:00

-10:

00

10:00

-11:

00

11:00

-12:

00

12:00

-13:

00

13:00

-14:

00

14:00

-15:

00

15:00

-16:

00

16:00

-17:

00

17:00

-18:

00

18:00

-19:

00

19:00

-20:

00

20:00

-21:

00

21:00

-22:

00

22:00

-23:

00

23:00

-00:

00

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Figure 42 - LFLC quarterly movements

This is a high traffic airport with peaks in landing movements early morning and late evening with an overall decrease in landings seen for Q3. Taking into account ILS capability and tailwind statistics, there is an estimated 352 (4%) non-ILS landings per year.

I.6 Estimated cost savings





Table 49 – LFLC annual disruptions



Annual reduction in disruptions 0 0.2 0.2


Table 50 – LFLC annual benefits

Negligible cost savings are estimated for the implementation of RNAV. APV BaroVNAV estimated minima are higher than the best NPA currently available and so this offers no cost savings. Whilst SBAS APV I/II approaches do enable reduced operational minima the weather conditions throughout the year mean this has little if any impact.

P723D003* HELIOS 95 of 161

Whilst a greater reduction in operational minima may be observed through a complete procedure design process the annual cost savings would nonetheless be expected to be quite low owing to largely favourable meteorological conditions.

P723D003* HELIOS 96 of 161

J LFBL benefits analysis

J.1 Overview

This annex provides detailed analysis for Bellegarde (LFBL) in France. This is a single runway airport with one ILS installation at runway end 210 degrees.

The introduction of RNAV approach capability is seen as a backup to ILS.

Figure 43 - LFBL airport chart


P723D003* HELIOS 97 of 161

Figure 44 - LFBL obstacle chart

J.2 Approach minima


For the runway end LFBL03:

Limoges/Bellegarde – LFBL03

Current OCH (ft)


LNAV 460

NDB 460

Table 51 – LFBL03 OCH for current approaches

P723D003* HELIOS 98 of 161




ILS CAT I 132 142 151 161

SBAS APVI 132 142 151 161

SBAS APVII 132 142 151 161

APV BaroVNAV 270

LNAV 436

Table 52 – LFBL03 OCH using MET tool

All APVs for this runway end would have a 300ft minimum decision height as it has no PA capability. PA lighting would be required to achieve the 250ft minimum. Therefore:

� All APVs offer significant reduction (210ft) over existing NPAs.


For the runway end LFBL21:


Current OCH (ft)


ILS CAT I 200

LOC 550

NDB 580

Table 53 – LFBL21 OCH for current approaches




ILS CAT I 132 142 151 161

SBAS APVI 132 142 151 161

SBAS APVII 132 142 151 161

APV BaroVNAV 286

LNAV 1022

Table 54 – LFBL21 OCH using MET tool

All APVs will have a 250ft minimum decision height (PA capable). Therefore:

� APV BaroVNAV offers a significant reduction (260-280ft) over existing NPAs;

� SBAS APV I/II offers significant reduction (300-330ft) over existing NPAs.


P723D003* HELIOS 99 of 161

J.3 Runway usage


-10.00

-8.00

-6.00

-4.00

-2.00

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

00:0

0-01

:00

01:0

0-02

:00

02:0

0-03

:00

03:0

0-04

:00

04:0

0-05

:00

05:0

0-06

:00

06:0

0-07

:00

07:0

0-08

:00

08:0

0-09

:00

09:0

0-10

:00

10:0

0-11

:00

11:0

0-12

:00

12:0

0-13

:00

13:0

0-14

:00

14:0

0-15

:00

15:0

0-16

:00

16:0

0-17

:00

17:0

0-18

:00

18:0

0-19

:00

19:0

0-20

:00

20:0

0-21

:00

21:0

0-22

:00

22:0

0-23

:00

23:0

0-00

:00

Hour

Ave

rage

spe

ed (

kts)

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Figure 45 - LFBL03 average tailwind strength

-10.00

-8.00

-6.00

-4.00

-2.00

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

00:0

0-01

:00

01:0

0-02

:00

02:0

0-03

:00

03:0

0-04

:00

04:0

0-05

:00

05:0

0-06

:00

06:0

0-07

:00

07:0

0-08

:00

08:0

0-09

:00

09:0

0-10

:00

10:0

0-11

:00

11:0

0-12

:00

12:0

0-13

:00

13:0

0-14

:00

14:0

0-15

:00

15:0

0-16

:00

16:0

0-17

:00

17:0

0-18

:00

18:0

0-19

:00

19:0

0-20

:00

20:0

0-21

:00

21:0

0-22

:00

22:0

0-23

:00

23:0

0-00

:00

Hour

Ave

rage

spe

ed (

kts)

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Figure 46 - LFBL21 average tailwind strength

The preference based on this would be to use the runway end LFBL21 throughout all quarters with the exception of mid-day operations for Q2 and Q4. LFBL21 provides significantly lower operational minima and given the wind strength remains quite low this is assumed to be the default operational runway end for all quarters. Therefore LFBL21 is selected for the benefits analysis.

P723D003* HELIOS 100 of 161

J.4 Airport accessibility gain

The airport accessibility gain per quarter for the preferred runway end is shown below.

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

NDBVOR

LOC

LNAV

ILSCATI

ILSCATII

LNAV

BaroVNAV

SBASAPVI_A

SBASAPVII_A

SBASAPVI_B

SBASAPVII_B

SBASAPVI_C

SBASAPVII_C

SBASAPVI_D

SBASAPVII_D

Approach type

Dis

rupt

ion

hour

s

Q4

Q3

Q2

Q1

Figure 47 - LFBL21 disruption hours

RNAV approach demonstrates a significant potential gain (500 additional hours) over current NPA minima. There is a negligible difference between the implementation of APV BaroVNAV and SBAS APV I/II.

A similar potential gain is observed for LFBL03, shown below.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

NDBVOR

LOC

LNAV

ILSCATI

ILSCATII

LNAV

BaroVNAV

SBASAPVI_A

SBASAPVII_A

SBASAPVI_B

SBASAPVII_B

SBASAPVI_C

SBASAPVII_C

SBASAPVI_D

SBASAPVII_D

Approach type

Dis

rupt

ion

hour

s

Q4

Q3

Q2

Q1

Figure 48 - LFBL03 disruption hours

P723D003* HELIOS 101 of 161

J.5 Aircraft landings


0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

220

240

00:00

-01:

00

01:00

-02:

00

02:00

-03:

00

03:00

-04:

00

04:00

-05:

00

05:00

-06:

00

06:00

-07:

00

07:00

-08:

00

08:00

-09:

00

09:00

-10:

00

10:00

-11:

00

11:00

-12:

00

12:00

-13:

00

13:00

-14:

00

14:00

-15:

00

15:00

-16:

00

16:00

-17:

00

17:00

-18:

00

18:00

-19:

00

19:00

-20:

00

20:00

-21:

00

21:00

-22:

00

22:00

-23:

00

23:00

-00:

00

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Figure 49 - LFBL quarterly movements

Traffic levels are relatively constant throughout all quarters with a daily peak around midday. Taking into account ILS capability and tailwind statistics there is an estimated 883 (20%) non-ILS landings per year.

J.6 Estimated cost savings





Table 55 – LFBL annual disruptions





Table 56 – LFBL annual benefits

Significant cost savings are estimated for the implementation of RNAV approach. SBAS APV I/II capability offers annual cost savings on the order of €270,00 whilst APV BaroVNAV offers annual savings of €140,000.

P723D003* HELIOS 102 of 161

A large percentage of non-ILS landings are observed and the benefit for these in reduction in operational minima is realised during periods of unfavourable meteorological conditions. These are especially evident during the winter months (i.e. Q1 and Q4) as is illustrated in the accessibility gain chart.

P723D003* HELIOS 103 of 161

K LFBZ benefits analysis

K.1 Overview

This annex provides detailed analysis for Biarritz (LFBZ) in France. This is a single runway airport with one ILS installation at runway end 270 degrees (LFBZ27).

This case study was aimed at investigating the potential benefit of RNAV approach for an alternative LFBZ09 default operational runway end (only obstacle data for this runway end was provided).

Figure 50 - LFBZ airport chart

P723D003* HELIOS 104 of 161


Figure 51 - LFBZ obstacle chart

K.2 Approach minima


For the runway end LFBZ09:

Biarritz – LFBZ09

Current OCH (ft)


LNAV 380

VOR 390

Table 57 - LFBZ09 OCH for current approaches

P723D003* HELIOS 105 of 161

Biarritz – LFBZ09



ILS CAT I 132 142 151 161

SBAS APVI 198 208 217 227

SBAS APVII 132 142 151 161

APV BaroVNAV 327

LNAV 379

Table 58 – LFBZ09 OCH using MET tool

The ILS minima are exceptionally low. This is rooted in the fact that there are no significant obstacles penetrating the Obstacle Assessment Surface (OAS) in this case. Therefore the MET tool estimates the MDH as the HL component for the highest category of an aircraft. It does not take into account minimum minima as specified by Doc 8168.

All APVs for this runway end would have a 300ft minimum decision height as it has no PA capability. PA lighting would therefore be required to achieve the 250ft minimum. Therefore:

� APV BaroVNAV offers some reduction (50-60ft) over existing NPA minima;

� SBAS APV I/II offers some reduction (80-90ft) over existing NPA minima;

LPV200 may be possible for aircraft category A from these values.

Current operational minima for runway end LFBZ27 are also shown for comparison.

Biarritz – LFBZ27

Current OCH (ft)


ILS CAT I 200

LOC8 310

NDB 630

Table 59 – LFBZ27 OCH for current approaches

K.3 Runway usage


8 The LOC approach surfaces allow for improved minima over an NDB approach

P723D003* HELIOS 106 of 161

-10.00

-8.00

-6.00

-4.00

-2.00

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

00:0

0-01

:00

01:0

0-02

:00

02:0

0-03

:00

03:0

0-04

:00

04:0

0-05

:00

05:0

0-06

:00

06:0

0-07

:00

07:0

0-08

:00

08:0

0-09

:00

09:0

0-10

:00

10:0

0-11

:00

11:0

0-12

:00

12:0

0-13

:00

13:0

0-14

:00

14:0

0-15

:00

15:0

0-16

:00

16:0

0-17

:00

17:0

0-18

:00

18:0

0-19

:00

19:0

0-20

:00

20:0

0-21

:00

21:0

0-22

:00

22:0

0-23

:00

23:0

0-00

:00

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Figure 52 – LFBZ27 average tailwind strength

Average tailwind strength at LFBZ27 remains quite low rarely exceeding 1knt throughout the year. It is somewhat higher however for LFBZ09.

K.4 Airport accessibility gain

The airport accessibility gain per quarter for LFBZ27 is shown below.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

NDBVOR

LOC

LNAV

ILSCATI

ILSCATII

LNAV

BaroVNAV

SBASAPVI_A

SBASAPVII_A

SBASAPVI_B

SBASAPVII_B

SBASAPVI_C

SBASAPVII_C

SBASAPVI_D

SBASAPVII_D

Approach type

Dis

rupt

ion

hour

s

Q4

Q3

Q2

Q1

Figure 53 - LFBZ27 disruption hours

P723D003* HELIOS 107 of 161

As to be expected, the current available ILS procedure exhibits significantly less disruption hours when compared to the NPAs. This is consistent across all quarters.

The airport accessibility gain per quarter for LFBZ09 is shown below.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

NDBVOR

LOC

LNAV

ILSCATI

ILSCATII

LNAV

BaroVNAV

SBASAPVI_A

SBASAPVII_A

SBASAPVI_B

SBASAPVII_B

SBASAPVI_C

SBASAPVII_C

SBASAPVI_D

SBASAPVII_D

Approach type

Dis

rupt

ion

hour

s

Q4

Q3

Q2

Q1

Figure 54 – LFBZ09 disruption hours

SBAS APV I/II demonstrates a significant potential gain in airport capacity, on the order of 80 hours, over current minima for this runway end. APV BaroVNAV offers approximately half this potential capacity gain.

The potential gain in respect of RNAV approach capability at LFBZ09 with respect to current approach capability at LFBZ27 however is quite low. Therefore it is likely that for a change in the default operational runway end, little benefit will be achieved.

K.5 Aircraft landings


0.00

100.00

200.00

300.00

400.00

500.00

600.00

700.00

00:00

-01:

00

01:00

-02:

00

02:00

-03:

00

03:00

-04:

00

04:00

-05:

00

05:00

-06:

00

06:00

-07:

00

07:00

-08:

00

08:00

-09:

00

09:00

-10:

00

10:00

-11:

00

11:00

-12:

00

12:00

-13:

00

13:00

-14:

00

14:00

-15:

00

15:00

-16:

00

16:00

-17:

00

17:00

-18:

00

18:00

-19:

00

19:00

-20:

00

20:00

-21:

00

21:00

-22:

00

22:00

-23:

00

23:00

-00:

00

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

P723D003* HELIOS 108 of 161

Figure 55 - LFBZ quarterly movements

Traffic levels remain relatively constant throughout the year. Taking into account ILS capability and tailwind statistics, there is an estimated 854 (15%) non-ILS landings per year.

K.6 Estimated cost savings


The baseline case assumes LFBZ27 as the default operational runway. The other scenarios assume LFBZ09 as the default operational runway end, albeit with RNAV approach capability.




Table 60 – LFBZ annual disruptions



Annual reduction in disruptions -3 -1 -1

Annual cost savings (€) -16,100 -3,300 -3,300

Table 61 – LFBZ annual benefits

No benefit is seen in changing the default operational runway end enabled with RNAV approach capability.

Given the high number of estimated current disruptions, a significant level of annual cost savings could be expected in case of RNAV approach as a backup to ILS at runway end LFBZ22. This would require more complete obstacle data to allow for MET tool analysis of potential approach types at this runway end.

P723D003* HELIOS 109 of 161

L LFQQ benefits analysis

L.1 Overview

This annex provides detailed analysis for Lille (LFQQ) in France. This is a single runway airport with one ILS installation at runway end 260 degrees (LFQQ26).

This case study was aimed at investigating the potential benefit of RNAV approach for an alternative LFQQ08 default operational runway end (only obstacle data for this runway end was provided).

Figure 56 - LFQQ airport chart

P723D003* HELIOS 110 of 161


Figure 57 - LFQQ obstacle chart

L.2 Approach minima

The OCH for both current and MET estimated approach types for LFQQ08 are presented below.

Lille – LFQQ08

Current OCH (ft)


LNAV 350

VOR/DME 360

VOR 440

Table 62 – LFQQ08 OCH for current approaches

Lille – LFQQ08



ILS CAT I 132 142 151 161

SBAS APVI 132 142 151 161

SBAS APVII 132 142 151 161

APV BaroVNAV 247

LNAV 247

Table 63 – LFQQ08 OCH using MET tool

P723D003* HELIOS 111 of 161

The ILS minima are exceptionally low. This is rooted in the fact that there are no significant obstacles penetrating the Obstacle Assessment Surface (OAS) in this case. Therefore the MET tool estimates the MDH as the HL component for the highest category of an aircraft. It does not take into account minimum minima as specified by Doc 8168.

All APVs for this runway end would have a 300ft minimum decision height as it has no PA capability. PA lighting would therefore be required to achieve the 250ft minimum. In summary:

� APV BaroVNAV offers some reduction (50-140ft) over existing minima;

� SBAS APV I/II offers some reduction (50-140ft) over existing minima;


Current operational minima for the runway end LFQQ26 are shown below. The minima for currently published NPAs are relatively high.

Lille – LFQQ26

Current OCH (ft)


NDB 440

LOC 440

ILS CAT I 200

Table 64 – LFQQ26 OCH for current approaches

L.3 Runway usage


-10.00

-8.00

-6.00

-4.00

-2.00

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

00:0

0-01

:00

01:0

0-02

:00

02:0

0-03

:00

03:0

0-04

:00

04:0

0-05

:00

05:0

0-06

:00

06:0

0-07

:00

07:0

0-08

:00

08:0

0-09

:00

09:0

0-10

:00

10:0

0-11

:00

11:0

0-12

:00

12:0

0-13

:00

13:0

0-14

:00

14:0

0-15

:00

15:0

0-16

:00

16:0

0-17

:00

17:0

0-18

:00

18:0

0-19

:00

19:0

0-20

:00

20:0

0-21

:00

21:0

0-22

:00

22:0

0-23

:00

23:0

0-00

:00

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Figure 58 - LFQQ08 average tailwind strength

P723D003* HELIOS 112 of 161

The preference based on this will be to use LFQQ08 for all quarters. Tailwind conditions remain quite high for LFQQ26, especially during Q1.

L.4 Airport accessibility gain

The airport accessibility gain per quarter for LFQQ26 is shown below.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

NDBVOR

LOC

LNAV

ILSCATI

ILSCATII

LNAV

BaroVNAV

SBASAPVI_A

SBASAPVII_A

SBASAPVI_B

SBASAPVII_B

SBASAPVI_C

SBASAPVII_C

SBASAPVI_D

SBASAPVII_D

Approach type

Dis

rupt

ion

hour

s

Q4

Q3

Q2

Q1

Figure 59 - LFQQ26 disruption hours

As to be expected, the current available ILS procedure exhibits significantly less disruption hours when compared to the NPAs. This is consistent across all quarters.

The airport accessibility gain per quarter for LFQQ08 is shown below.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

NDBVOR

LOC

LNAV

ILSCATI

ILSCATI

I

LNAV

BaroVNAV

SBASAPVI_A

SBASAPVII_A

SBASAPVI_

B

SBASAPVII_B

SBASAPVI_C

SBASAPVII_C

SBASAPVI_D

SBASAPVII_

D

Approach type

Dis

rupt

ion

hour

s Q4

Q3

Q2

Q1

Figure 60 – LFQQ08 disruption hours

P723D003* HELIOS 113 of 161

All RNAV approach types exhibit significant potential gains in airport capacity, on the order of 200 hours, over current minima. Negligible difference is seen between APV BaroVNAV and SBAS APV I/II approach types.

L.5 Aircraft landings


0.00

100.00

200.00

300.00

400.00

500.00

600.00

700.000

0:00

-01:

00

01:

00-0

2:00

02:

00-0

3:00

03:

00-0

4:00

04:

00-0

5:00

05:

00-0

6:00

06:

00-0

7:00

07:

00-0

8:00

08:

00-0

9:00

09:

00-1

0:00

10:

00-1

1:00

11:

00-1

2:00

12:

00-1

3:00

13:

00-1

4:00

14:

00-1

5:00

15:

00-1

6:00

16:

00-1

7:00

17:

00-1

8:00

18:

00-1

9:00

19:

00-2

0:00

20:

00-2

1:00

21:

00-2

2:00

22:

00-2

3:00

23:

00-0

0:00

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Figure 61 - LFQQ quarterly movements

Traffic levels remain relatively constant throughout the year with some decrease seen in Q3. Taking into account ILS capability and tailwind statistics, there is an estimated 1,165 (12%) non-ILS landings per year.

L.6 Estimated cost savings


The baseline case assumes LFQQ26 as the default operational runway. The other scenarios assume LFQQ08 as the default operational runway end, albeit with RNAV approach capability.




Table 65 – LFQQ annual disruptions


P723D003* HELIOS 114 of 161


Annual reduction in disruptions -78 -70 -70

Annual cost savings (€) -364,200 -327,300 -327,300

Table 66 – LFQQ annual benefits

There are no benefits seen in the use of an alternative operational runway end at LFQQ08 with RNAV approach capability.

Given the estimated number of current disruptions however an investigation into the use of RNAV approach as a backup to ILS at runway end LFQQ26 is warranted. This would require more complete obstacle data to allow for MET tool analysis of potential approach types at this runway end.

P723D003* HELIOS 115 of 161

M LFRB benefits analysis

M.1 Overview

This annex provides detailed analysis for Guipavas (LFRB) in France. This is a single runway airport with one ILS installation at runway end 250 degrees (LFRB25).

Figure 62 - LFRB airport chart

P723D003* HELIOS 116 of 161


Figure 63 - LFRB obstacle chart

M.2 Approach minima


For the runway end LFRB07:

Guipavas – LFRB07

Current OCH (ft)


LNAV 410

NDB 500

Table 67 – LFRB07 OCH for current approaches

Guipavas – LFRB07



ILS CAT I 174 184 194 204

SBAS APVI 215 225 234 244

SBAS APVII 183 193 203 213

APV BaroVNAV 400

LNAV 410

Table 68 – LFRB07 OCH using MET tool

P723D003* HELIOS 117 of 161

All APVs for this runway end would have a 300ft minimum decision height as it has no PA capability. PA lighting would therefore be required to achieve the 250ft minimum. In summary:

� APV BaroVNAV offers some reduction (10-100ft) over existing minima;

� SBAS APV I/II offers significant reduction (110-200ft) over existing minima.


Current operational minima for the runway end LFRB25 are also shown for comparison.

Guipavas – LFRB25

Current OCH (ft)


ILS CAT I 200

LOC 460

NDB 450

Table 69 – LFRB25 OCH for current approaches

The NPA minima are relatively close to those of LFRB07.

Guipavas – LFRB25



ILS CAT I 214 224 233 243

SBAS APVI 253 263 272 282

SBAS APVII 222 232 242 252

APV BaroVNAV 250

LNAV 522

Table 70 – LFRB25 OCH using MET tool

All APVs for this runway end would have a 250ft minimum decision height (ILS present). In summary:

� APV BaroVNAV offers significant reduction (200-210ft) over existing minima;

� SBAS APV I/II offers significant reduction (170-230ft) over existing minima.


M.3 Runway usage

The hourly variation of average tailwind strength per quarter for the LFRB25 runway end is shown below.

P723D003* HELIOS 118 of 161

-10.00

-8.00

-6.00

-4.00

-2.00

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

00:0

0-01

:00

01:0

0-02

:00

02:0

0-03

:00

03:0

0-04

:00

04:0

0-05

:00

05:0

0-06

:00

06:0

0-07

:00

07:0

0-08

:00

08:0

0-09

:00

09:0

0-10

:00

10:0

0-11

:00

11:0

0-12

:00

12:0

0-13

:00

13:0

0-14

:00

14:0

0-15

:00

15:0

0-16

:00

16:0

0-17

:00

17:0

0-18

:00

18:0

0-19

:00

19:0

0-20

:00

20:0

0-21

:00

21:0

0-22

:00

22:0

0-23

:00

23:0

0-00

:00

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Figure 64 – LFRB25 average tailwind strength

The preference based on this will be to use LFRB25 for all quarters. This is consistent with the airport PA capability.

M.4 Airport accessibility gain

The airport accessibility gain per quarter for LFRB25 is shown below.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

NDBVOR

LOC

LNAV

ILSCATI

ILSCATII

LNAV

BaroVNAV

SBASAPVI_A

SBASAPVII_A

SBASAPVI_B

SBASAPVII_B

SBASAPVI_C

SBASAPVII_C

SBASAPVI_D

SBASAPVII_D

Approach type

Dis

rupt

ion

hour

s

Q4

Q3

Q2

Q1

Figure 65 - LFRB25 disruption hours

P723D003* HELIOS 119 of 161

APV BaroVNAV demonstrates a potential gain of significant potential gain in airport capacity (300-400 additional hours). SBAS APV I/II offers similar gain however dependant upon the aircraft approach category this can be slightly lower.

M.5 Aircraft landings


0.00

100.00

200.00

300.00

400.00

500.00

600.00

700.00

00:00

-01:

00

01:00

-02:

00

02:00

-03:

00

03:00

-04:

00

04:00

-05:

00

05:00

-06:

00

06:00

-07:

00

07:00

-08:

00

08:00

-09:

00

09:00

-10:

00

10:00

-11:

00

11:00

-12:

00

12:00

-13:

00

13:00

-14:

00

14:00

-15:

00

15:00

-16:

00

16:00

-17:

00

17:00

-18:

00

18:00

-19:

00

19:00

-20:

00

20:00

-21:

00

21:00

-22:

00

22:00

-23:

00

23:00

-00:

00

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Figure 66 - LFRB quarterly movements

The majority of movements occur during Q2 and Q3. Taking into account ILS capability and tailwind statistics, there is an estimated 995 (15%) non-ILS landings per year.

M.6 Estimated cost savings





Table 71 – LFRB annual disruptions





Table 72 – LFRB annual benefits

P723D003* HELIOS 120 of 161

There is significant annual benefit seen with the introduction of RNAV approach capability. APV BaroVNAV provides annual cost savings in the order of €260,000 whilst SBAS APV I provides annual cost savings in the order of €290,000.

Whilst generally there are low tailwind conditions, there is much variability seen in the tailwind strength during certain peak periods. This allows for a high number of non-ILS landings. The benefit for these landings, of reduction in operational minima enabled by RNAV approach, is amplified by the unfavourable meteorological conditions during the same periods. This leads to a significant reduction in aircraft disruptions, in particular for quarters 1 to 3.

P723D003* HELIOS 121 of 161

N EFKT benefits analysis

N.1 Overview

This annex provides detailed analysis for Kittila (EFKT) in Finland. This is a single runway airport with one ILS installation at runway end 340 degrees (EFKT34).

The introduction of RNAV approach capability is considered as a potential backup to ILS or alternatively allowing a change in the default operational runway end.

Figure 67 - EFKT aerodrome chart

P723D003* HELIOS 122 of 161


Figure 68 - EFKT aerodrome obstacle chart

N.2 Approach minima

The OCH for both current and MET estimated approach types for this runway are presented below.

For runway end EFKT16:

Kittila – EFKT16 (16.3 deg)

Current OCH (ft)


LLZ (/DME) 480

Table 73 – EFKT16 OCH for current approaches

P723D003* HELIOS 123 of 161

Kittila – EFKT16 (16.3 deg)



ILS CAT I 180 190 200 209

SBAS APVI 213 223 232 242

SBAS APVII 180 190 200 209

APV BaroVNAV 579

LNAV 1047

Table 74 – EFKT16 OCH using MET tool

The LNAV approach minima for EFKT16 are unusually high owing to several tall obstacles found at the beginning of the final approach segment. The MET tool does not allow the incorporation of step-down fixes which would be employed given the opportunity of a complete procedure design process.

Similarly, a lower APV BaroVNAV minima could be derived in using a higher glide slope value. A standard set of approach parameters however was applied to all case studies to remove any particular results bias owing to the assessment methodology of the MET tool.

All APVs for this runway end would have a 300ft minimum decision height as it has no is PA capability. PA lighting would therefore be required to achieve a 250ft minimum decision height. In summary

� APV BaroVNAV offers significant reduction (230ft) over current minima;

� SBAS APV I/II offers no reduction over current minima;


For runway end EFKT34 runway:

Kittila – EFKT34

Current OCH (ft)


ILS CAT I 162 173 188 206

NDB 790 750 720 730

LLZ (/DME) 730 700 680 700

Table 75 – EFKT34 OCH for current approaches

P723D003* HELIOS 124 of 161

Kittila – EFKT34



ILS CAT I 425 435 445 454

SBAS APVI 209 219 225 238

SBAS APVII 188 198 229 217

APV BaroVNAV 453

LNAV 654

Table 76 – EFKT34 OCH using MET tool


� APV BaroVNAV offers significant reduction (130-270ft) over current minima;

� SBAS APV I/II offers significant reduction (430-470ft) over current minima;


N.3 Runway usage


Average tailwind strength

-10.00

-8.00

-6.00

-4.00

-2.00

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

00:0

0-01

:00

01:0

0-02

:00

02:0

0-03

:00

03:0

0-04

:00

04:0

0-05

:00

05:0

0-06

:00

06:0

0-07

:00

07:0

0-08

:00

08:0

0-09

:00

09:0

0-10

:00

10:0

0-11

:00

11:0

0-12

:00

12:0

0-13

:00

13:0

0-14

:00

14:0

0-15

:00

15:0

0-16

:00

16:0

0-17

:00

17:0

0-18

:00

18:0

0-19

:00

19:0

0-20

:00

20:0

0-21

:00

21:0

0-22

:00

22:0

0-23

:00

23:0

0-00

:00

Hour block

Tai

lwin

d sp

eed

(kno

ts)

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Figure 69 – EFKT16 average tailwind strength

P723D003* HELIOS 125 of 161

-10.00

-8.00

-6.00

-4.00

-2.00

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

00:0

0-01

:00

01:0

0-02

:00

02:0

0-03

:00

03:0

0-04

:00

04:0

0-05

:00

05:0

0-06

:00

06:0

0-07

:00

07:0

0-08

:00

08:0

0-09

:00

09:0

0-10

:00

10:0

0-11

:00

11:0

0-12

:00

12:0

0-13

:00

13:0

0-14

:00

14:0

0-15

:00

15:0

0-16

:00

16:0

0-17

:00

17:0

0-18

:00

18:0

0-19

:00

19:0

0-20

:00

20:0

0-21

:00

21:0

0-22

:00

22:0

0-23

:00

23:0

0-00

:00

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Figure 70 – EFKT34 average tailwind strength

Both runway ends are examined for the benefits analysis. Two cases are seen:

Case 1 - Backup to ILS: This selects EFKT34 as the default operational runway end. In this case, RNAV approach serves as a backup to the current ILS capability. The NPA operational minima at EFKT34 are quite high and so in times of ILS outage an RNAV approach could prove quite valuable in respect of reduced aircraft disruptions. In the future, it may replace the current NDB procedure.

Case 2 - Change in default operational runway: This selects EFKT16 as the default operational runway end. At present the only approach procedure available is an offset localizer procedure. The introduction of RNAV approach capability would, in addition to the usual benefits of improved safety and operational performance, also enable an increased utilisation of the runway. The location of the only runway exit point is such that use of EFKT16 as the default operational runway end would help avoid backtracking along the runway thus increasing the overall airport capacity. In addition, the tailwind conditions would seem to support such a case.

5.7 Airport accessibility gain

This is examined for both of the above cases.

Case 1

The airport accessibility gain per quarter for EFKT34 as the default operational runway end is shown below.

P723D003* HELIOS 126 of 161

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

NDBVOR

LOC

LNAV

ILSCATI

ILSCATII

LNAV_M

ET

BaroVNAV

SBASAPVI_A

SBASAPVII_A

SBASAPVI_B

SBASAPVII_B

SBASAPVI_C

SBASAPVII_C

SBASAPVI_D

SBASAPVII_D

Approach type

Dis

rupt

ion

hour

s

Q4

Q3

Q2

Q1

Figure 71 - EFKT34 annual disruption hours per appr oach type

SBAS APV I/II demonstrates a large potential gain (800 additional hours) in airport capacity over current NPA minima. APV BaroVNAV demonstrates a much lower potential gain (400 additional hours).

Case 2

The airport accessibility gain per quarter for EFKT16 as the default operational runway end is shown below.

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

NDBVOR

LOC

LNAV

ILSCATI

ILSCATII

LNAV_M

ET

BaroVNAV

SBASAPVI_A

SBASAPVII_A

SBASAPVI_B

SBASAPVII_B

SBASAPVI_C

SBASAPVII_C

SBASAPVI_D

SBASAPVII_D

Approach type

Dis

rupt

ion

hour

s

Q4

Q3

Q2

Q1

Figure 72 - EFKT16 annual disruption hours per appr oach type

P723D003* HELIOS 127 of 161

Again, SBAS APV I/II demonstrates a significant potential gain (400 additional hours) in airport capacity over current NPA minima. APV BaroVNAV demonstrates a lower potential gain (300 additional hours).

N.4 Aircraft landings


EFKT landings

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

00:00

-01:

00

02:00

-03:

00

04:00

-05:

00

06:00

-07:

00

08:00

-09:

00

10:00

-11:

00

12:00

-13:

00

14:00

-15:

00

16:00

-17:

00

18:00

-19:

00

20:00

-21:

00

22:00

-23:

00

Hour block

Num

ber

of la

ndin

gs

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Figure 73 - EFKT Quarterly landings

This is a low traffic airport. Aircraft movements are highest in Q1 with landing levels at least halved in other quarters. (Note, the same landing profile is used for both cases).

Taking into account ILS capability and tailwind statistics, there is an estimated 180 (29%) non-ILS landings per year for Case 1 and 59 (10%) non-ILS landings per year for Case 2. This owing to the difference in tailwind conditions at each runway end.

N.5 Estimated cost savings

The estimated annual aircraft disruptions and corresponding cost for both cases are presented below.

Case 1

The estimated annual disruptions are shown below where EFKT34 is retained as the default operational runway end.

EFKT Baseline Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3



Table 77 – EFKT34 annual disruptions

P723D003* HELIOS 128 of 161


Airport: EFKT Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3



Table 78 – EFKT34 annual benefits

There is a significant level of annual benefit with the implementation of RNAV approach. Negligible difference is seen between implementation of APV BaroVNAV and SBAS capability.

Case 2

The estimated annual disruptions are shown below where EFKT34 is used is maintained as the baseline case and EFKT16 is used as the default operational runway end for the other scenarios.




Table 79 – EFKT16 annual disruptions





Table 80 – EFKT16 annual benefits

There is a very high level annual cost savings seen with the use of EFKT16 as the default operational runway end. This is largely owing to reduced tailwind conditions for in using this runway end, amplifying the reduction in operational minima with respect to the current NPA.

Therefore further investigation into a change in the default operational runway end for this airport is warranted.

P723D003* HELIOS 129 of 161

O EFTP benefits analysis

O.1 Overview

This annex provides detailed analysis for Tampere-Pirkkala (EFTP) airport in Finland. This is a single runway airport with one ILS installation at runway end 240 degrees (EFTP24).

The introduction of RNAV approach capability is considered as a potential backup to ILS as well as allowing a change in the default operational runway end for night time arrivals to help satisfy environmental (i.e. noise) requirements.

P723D003* HELIOS 130 of 161

Figure 74 - EFTP airport chart


Figure 75 - EFTP obstacle chart

O.2 Approach minima


For the EFTP06 runway end:

Tampere –EFTP06

Current OCH (ft)


NDB 440

VOR 390

LNAV 390

Table 81 – EFTP06 OCH for current approaches

Tampere – EFTP06



ILS CAT I 267 277 286 296

SBAS APVI 267 277 286 296

SBAS APVII 267 277 286 296

APV BaroVNAV 381

LNAV 399

Table 82 – EFTP06 OCH using MET tool

P723D003* HELIOS 131 of 161

There are significant obstacles located close to the runway end which cannot be avoided by APV BaroVNAV, irrespective of the procedure design methodology used.

All APVs for this runway end will have a 300ft minimum decision height as it has no PA capability. PA lighting would therefore be required to achieve the 250ft minimum. Therefore:

� APV BaroVNAV offers negligible reduction (10-50ft) over existing NPA minima;

� SBAS APV I/II offers significant reduction (90-140ft) over existing NPA minima.


For the EFTP24 runway end:

Tampere –EFTP24

Current OCH (ft)


ILS CAT I 176 187 200 214

LNAV 500

LLZ (/DME) 500

VOR 530

Table 83 – EFTP24 OCH for current approaches

Tampere – EFTP24



ILS CAT I 233 242 242 262

SBAS APVI 252 261 271 281

SBAS APVII 233 242 252 262

APV BaroVNAV 360

LNAV 499

Table 84 – EFTP24 OCH using MET tool

There are significant obstacles located a distance from the runway end which cannot be avoided by LNAV however for APV BaroVNAV and SBAS APV I/II have no impact owing to the shape of their related assessment surfaces.

All APVs will have a minimum decision height of 250ft (PA capable). Therefore:

� APV BaroVNAV offers significant reduction (140-170ft) compared to existing NPA minima.

� SBAS APV I/II offers significant reduction (250-280ft) compared to existing NPA minima


P723D003* HELIOS 132 of 161

O.3 Runway usage


-10.00

-8.00

-6.00

-4.00

-2.00

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

00:0

0-01

:00

01:0

0-02

:00

02:0

0-03

:00

03:0

0-04

:00

04:0

0-05

:00

05:0

0-06

:00

06:0

0-07

:00

07:0

0-08

:00

08:0

0-09

:00

09:0

0-10

:00

10:0

0-11

:00

11:0

0-12

:00

12:0

0-13

:00

13:0

0-14

:00

14:0

0-15

:00

15:0

0-16

:00

16:0

0-17

:00

17:0

0-18

:00

18:0

0-19

:00

19:0

0-20

:00

20:0

0-21

:00

21:0

0-22

:00

22:0

0-23

:00

23:0

0-00

:00

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Figure 76 – EFTP06 average tailwind strength

-10.00

-8.00

-6.00

-4.00

-2.00

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

00:0

0-01

:00

01:0

0-02

:00

02:0

0-03

:00

03:0

0-04

:00

04:0

0-05

:00

05:0

0-06

:00

06:0

0-07

:00

07:0

0-08

:00

08:0

0-09

:00

09:0

0-10

:00

10:0

0-11

:00

11:0

0-12

:00

12:0

0-13

:00

13:0

0-14

:00

14:0

0-15

:00

15:0

0-16

:00

16:0

0-17

:00

17:0

0-18

:00

18:0

0-19

:00

19:0

0-20

:00

20:0

0-21

:00

21:0

0-22

:00

22:0

0-23

:00

23:0

0-00

:00

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Figure 77 – EFTP24 average tailwind strength

The preference based on this will be to use EFTP24 for all quarters. This is consistent with the runway PA capability. An additional dimension however, in

P723D003* HELIOS 133 of 161

terms of environment requirements, is also to be considered: EFTP06 is the preferred runway end for night time arrivals owing to noise emission requirements.

Therefore EFTP24 is assumed to be the default operational runway end for daytime operations and EFTP06 for night-time operations. The benefits analysis is performed in reflection of this.

O.4 Airport accessibility gain

The airport accessibility gain per quarter for EFTP24 runway end use is shown below.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

NDBVOR

LOC

LNAV

ILSCATI

ILSCATII

LNAV

BaroVNAV

SBASAPVI_A

SBASAPVII_A

SBASAPVI_B

SBASAPVII_B

SBASAPVI_C

SBASAPVII_C

SBASAPVI_D

SBASAPVII_D

Approach type

Dis

rupt

ion

hour

s Q4

Q3

Q2

Q1

Figure 78 - EFTP24 disruption hours

SBAS APV I/II demonstrates a significant potential gain (400-500 additional hours) in airport capacity over current NPA minima. APV BaroVNAV demonstrates a slightly lower potential gain (100-200 additional hours).

A similar chart is provided for EFTP06 runway end use.

P723D003* HELIOS 134 of 161

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

NDBVOR

LOC

LNAV

ILSCATI

ILSCATII

LNAV_M

ET

BaroVNAV

SBASAPVI_A

SBASAPVII_A

ILSCATI_A

SBASAPVI_B

SBASAPVII_B

ILSCATI_B

SBASAPVI_C

SBASAPVII_C

Approach type

Dis

rupt

ion

hour

s Q4

Q3

Q2

Q1

Figure 79 - EFTP06 disruption hours

A similar trend is exhibited here albeit offering lower potential gains. SBAS APV I/II demonstrates a potential gain of 200-250 additional hours over current minima whilst APV BaroVNAV demonstrates a maximum potential gain of 60 additional hours.

O.5 Aircraft landings


-10

10

30

50

70

90

110

130

150

170

190

210

230

250

00:00

-01:

00

01:00

-02:

00

02:00

-03:

00

03:00

-04:

00

04:00

-05:

00

05:00

-06:

00

06:00

-07:

00

07:00

-08:

00

08:00

-09:

00

09:00

-10:

00

10:00

-11:

00

11:00

-12:

00

12:00

-13:

00

13:00

-14:

00

14:00

-15:

00

15:00

-16:

00

16:00

-17:

00

17:00

-18:

00

18:00

-19:

00

19:00

-20:

00

20:00

-21:

00

21:00

-22:

00

22:00

-23:

00

23:00

-00:

00

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Figure 80 - EFTP quarterly movements

Traffic levels remain relatively constant throughout the year. Some small variation is observed in the early and late hours of the day through different quarters.

P723D003* HELIOS 135 of 161

Taking into account ILS capability and tailwind statistics, there is an estimated 510 (11%) non-ILS landings per year.

O.6 Estimated cost savings


Night operations

The estimated annual disruptions are shown below where EFTP06 is the default operational runway end during night time operations.




Table 85 – EFTP06 annual disruptions




Annual cost savings (€) 0 12,100 12,100

Table 86 – EFTP06 annual benefits

Day operations

The estimated annual disruptions are shown below where EFTP24 is the default operational runway end during day time operations.




Table 87 – EFTP24 annual disruptions





Table 88 – EFTP24 annual benefits

For all operation times

The combined estimated annual aircraft disruptions and corresponding cost savings from above are therefore:

P723D003* HELIOS 136 of 161




Table 89 – EFTP annual disruptions




Table 90 – EFTP annual benefits

There is significant annual benefit with the introduction of RNAV approach capability. Whilst APV BaroVNAV provides annual cost savings in the order of €38,000, SBAS APV I provides annual cost savings in the order of €100,000.

P723D003* HELIOS 137 of 161

P EFRO benefits analysis

P.1 Overview

This annex provides detailed analysis for Rovaniemi (EFRO) in Finland. This is a single runway airport with one ILS installation at runway end 210 degrees (EFRO21).

This airport already has LNAV procedures in place. The introduction of BaroVNAV procedures is considered of interest as allowing better minim and safety levels in the case where ILS cannot be used.

Figure 81 - EFRO airport chart

P723D003* HELIOS 138 of 161


Figure 82 - EFRO obstacle chart

P.2 Approach minima


For the runway end EFRO03:

Rovaneimi – EFRO03

Current OCH (ft)


LNAV 370

VOR 370

NDB 450

Table 91 – EFRO03 OCH for current approaches

P723D003* HELIOS 139 of 161




ILS CAT I 202 212 222 231

SBAS APVI 241 251 261 270

SBAS APVII 202 212 221 231

APV BaroVNAV 287

LNAV 368

Table 92 – EFRO03 OCH using MET tool

All APVs for this runway end will have a 300ft minimum decision height as it has no PA capability. PA lighting would be required to achieve the 250ft minimum. In summary:

� All APVs (APV BaroVNAV and SBAS APV I/II) offer some reduction (90-150ft) over current NPA minima;


For the runway end EFRO21:


Current OCH (ft)


ILS CAT I 174 187 199 210

LNAV 370

LOC 380

VOR 400

NDB 430

Table 93 – EFRO21 OCH for current approaches




ILS CAT I 216 226 236 245

SBAS APVI 257 267 276 286

SBAS APVII 225 235 245 255

APV BaroVNAV 265

LNAV 392

Table 94 – EFRO21 OCH using MET tool

The MET tool does not take into account the Minimum Obstacle Clearance (MOC) decrease in the initial missed approach segment at the beginning of an aircrafts’

P723D003* HELIOS 140 of 161

climb. Therefore even through the most significant obstacle is the same for both the MET tool analysis and the published procedure, the LNAV minima is slightly overestimated.


� All APVs (APV BaroVNAV and SBAS APV I/II) offer an approximate 70-130ft reduction over existing NPA minima;


P.3 Runway usage


-10.00

-8.00

-6.00

-4.00

-2.00

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

00:0

0-01

:00

01:0

0-02

:00

02:0

0-03

:00

03:0

0-04

:00

04:0

0-05

:00

05:0

0-06

:00

06:0

0-07

:00

07:0

0-08

:00

08:0

0-09

:00

09:0

0-10

:00

10:0

0-11

:00

11:0

0-12

:00

12:0

0-13

:00

13:0

0-14

:00

14:0

0-15

:00

15:0

0-16

:00

16:0

0-17

:00

17:0

0-18

:00

18:0

0-19

:00

19:0

0-20

:00

20:0

0-21

:00

21:0

0-22

:00

22:0

0-23

:00

23:0

0-00

:00

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Figure 83 – EFRO03 average tailwind strength

P723D003* HELIOS 141 of 161

-10.00

-8.00

-6.00

-4.00

-2.00

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

00:0

0-01

:00

01:0

0-02

:00

02:0

0-03

:00

03:0

0-04

:00

04:0

0-05

:00

05:0

0-06

:00

06:0

0-07

:00

07:0

0-08

:00

08:0

0-09

:00

09:0

0-10

:00

10:0

0-11

:00

11:0

0-12

:00

12:0

0-13

:00

13:0

0-14

:00

14:0

0-15

:00

15:0

0-16

:00

16:0

0-17

:00

17:0

0-18

:00

18:0

0-19

:00

19:0

0-20

:00

20:0

0-21

:00

21:0

0-22

:00

22:0

0-23

:00

23:0

0-00

:00

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Figure 84 – EFRO21 average tailwind strength

The preference based on this will be to use the EFRO21 runway end for all quarters. This is in line with the PA capability at this runway end. EFRO21 is the selected default operational runway end.

P.4 Airport accessibility gain

The airport accessibility gain per quarter for the EFRO03 is shown below.

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

NDBVOR

LOC

LNAV

ILSCATI

ILSCATII

LNAV

BaroVNAV

SBASAPVI_A

SBASAPVII_A

SBASAPVI_B

SBASAPVII_B

SBASAPVI_C

SBASAPVII_C

SBASAPVI_D

SBASAPVII_D

Approach type

Dis

rupt

ion

hour

s

Q4

Q3

Q2

Q1

Figure 85 - EFRO03 disruption hours

P723D003* HELIOS 142 of 161

SBAS APV I/II demonstrates a significant potential gain (300-400 additional hours) over current approach minima. APV BaroVNAV offers similar potential gain.

The airport accessibility gain per quarter for the EFRO21 is shown below.

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

NDBVOR

LOC

LNAV

ILSCATI

ILSCATII

LNAV

BaroVNAV

SBASAPVI_A

SBASAPVII_A

SBASAPVI_B

SBASAPVII_B

SBASAPVI_C

SBASAPVII_C

SBASAPVI_D

SBASAPVII_D

Approach type

Dis

rupt

ion

hour

s

Q4

Q3

Q2

Q1

Figure 86 - EFRO21 disruption hours

Similar potential gains for both SBAS APV I/II and APV BaroVNAV are observed.

P.5 Aircraft landings


0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

220

240

00:00

-01:

00

01:00

-02:

00

02:00

-03:

00

03:00

-04:

00

04:00

-05:

00

05:00

-06:

00

06:00

-07:

00

07:00

-08:

00

08:00

-09:

00

09:00

-10:

00

10:00

-11:

00

11:00

-12:

00

12:00

-13:

00

13:00

-14:

00

14:00

-15:

00

15:00

-16:

00

16:00

-17:

00

17:00

-18:

00

18:00

-19:

00

19:00

-20:

00

20:00

-21:

00

21:00

-22:

00

22:00

-23:

00

23:00

-00:

00

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Figure 87 - EFRO quarterly movements

P723D003* HELIOS 143 of 161

This is a low traffic airport with Q4 and Q1 having a slightly higher number of hourly landings than Q2 and Q3. Taking into account ILS capability and tailwind statistics, there is an estimated 357 (16%) non-ILS landings per year.

P.6 Estimated cost savings

The estimated annual aircraft disruptions and corresponding cost is presented below.




Table 95 – EFRO annual disruptions





Table 96 – EFRO annual benefits

There is a significant level of annual benefit with the implementation of RNAV approach. Scenario 2 is seen to have an annual benefit of approximately €18,000 greater than that of Scenario 1.

P723D003* HELIOS 144 of 161

Q EFOU benefits analysis

Q.1 Overview

This annex provides detailed analysis for Oulu (EFOU) in Finland. This is a single runway airport with one ILS installation at runway end 120 degrees (EFOU12).


Figure 88 - EFOU airport chart


P723D003* HELIOS 145 of 161

Figure 89 - EFOU obstacle chart

Q.2 Approach minima


For the runway end EFOU12:

Oulu – EFOU12

Current OCH (ft)


ILS CAT I 171 181 189 202

LNAV 370

LLZ (/DME) 370

VOR 370

NDB 390

Table 97 – EFOU12 OCH for current approaches

P723D003* HELIOS 146 of 161

Oulu – EFOU12



ILS CAT I 196 205 215 225

SBAS APVI 210 220 229 239

SBAS APVII 196 205 215 225

APV BaroVNAV 310

LNAV 368

Table 98 – EFOU12 OCH using MET tool


� APV BaroVNAV offers some reduction (60-70ft) over existing NPA minima;

� SBAS APV I/II offers significant reduction (120-140ft) over existing NPA minima;

LPV200 may be possible for aircraft category A from these values.

For the runway end EFOU30:

Oulu – EFOU30

Current OCH (ft)


NDB 400

VOR 360

RNAV 380

Table 99 – EFOU30 OCH for current approaches

Oulu – EFOU30



ILS CAT I 212 222 222 242

SBAS APVI 245 255 264 274

SBAS APVII 235 245 255 264

APV BaroVNAV 336

LNAV 377

Table 100 – EFOU30 OCH using MET tool

All APVs for this runway end will have a 300ft minimum decision height (no PA capability). PA approach lighting would be required to achieve a 250ft minimum decision height. In summary:

� APV BaroVNAV offers small reduction (20-60ft) over current minima;

P723D003* HELIOS 147 of 161

� SBAS APV I/II offers small reduction (60-100ft) over current minima.


Q.3 Runway usage


-10.00

-8.00

-6.00

-4.00

-2.00

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.0000

:00-

01:0

0

01:0

0-02

:00

02:0

0-03

:00

03:0

0-04

:00

04:0

0-05

:00

05:0

0-06

:00

06:0

0-07

:00

07:0

0-08

:00

08:0

0-09

:00

09:0

0-10

:00

10:0

0-11

:00

11:0

0-12

:00

12:0

0-13

:00

13:0

0-14

:00

14:0

0-15

:00

15:0

0-16

:00

16:0

0-17

:00

17:0

0-18

:00

18:0

0-19

:00

19:0

0-20

:00

20:0

0-21

:00

21:0

0-22

:00

22:0

0-23

:00

23:0

0-00

:00

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Figure 90 – EFOU12 average tailwind strength

-10.00

-8.00

-6.00

-4.00

-2.00

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

00:0

0-01

:00

01:0

0-02

:00

02:0

0-03

:00

03:0

0-04

:00

04:0

0-05

:00

05:0

0-06

:00

06:0

0-07

:00

07:0

0-08

:00

08:0

0-09

:00

09:0

0-10

:00

10:0

0-11

:00

11:0

0-12

:00

12:0

0-13

:00

13:0

0-14

:00

14:0

0-15

:00

15:0

0-16

:00

16:0

0-17

:00

17:0

0-18

:00

18:0

0-19

:00

19:0

0-20

:00

20:0

0-21

:00

21:0

0-22

:00

22:0

0-23

:00

23:0

0-00

:00

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Figure 91 – EFOU30 average tailwind strength

P723D003* HELIOS 148 of 161

The preference based on this will be EFOU30 for Q2 and Q3 and EFOU12 for Q4 and Q1. However EFOU12 is ILS equipped offering significantly lower minima whilst providing NPAs with minima of similar value to those of EFOU30. The tailwind strength does remain quite low throughout all quarters, irrespective of the observed variation. It is therefore assumed that EFOU12 is the default operational runway end and is selected for the benefits analysis for all quarters

Q.4 Airport accessibility gain

The airport accessibility gain per quarter for EFOU30 is shown below.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

NDBVOR

LOC

LNAV

ILSCATI

ILSCATII

LNAV

BaroVNAV

SBASAPVI_A

SBASAPVII_A

SBASAPVI_B

SBASAPVII_B

SBASAPVI_C

SBASAPVII_C

SBASAPVI_D

SBASAPVII_D

Approach type

Dis

rupt

ion

hour

s

Q4

Q3

Q2

Q1

Figure 92 - EFOU30 disruption hours

SBAS APV I/II demonstrates significant potential gain in airport capacity of approximately 200 hours over current NPA minima. APV BaroVNAV offers a lower potential gain of 50 additional hours over current minima.

The airport accessibility gain per quarter for EFOU12 is shown below.

P723D003* HELIOS 149 of 161

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

NDBVOR

LOC

LNAV

ILSCATI

ILSCATII

LNAV

BaroVNAV

SBASAPVI_A

SBASAPVII_A

SBASAPVI_B

SBASAPVII_B

SBASAPVI_C

SBASAPVII_C

SBASAPVI_D

SBASAPVII_D

Approach type

Dis

rupt

ion

hour

s

Q4

Q3

Q2

Q1

Figure 93 - EFOU12 disruption hours

Both SBAS APV I/II and APV BaroVNAV demonstrate similar potential gains for this runway end.

Q.5 Aircraft landings


0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

120.00

140.00

160.00

180.00

200.00

220.00

240.00

00:0

0-01

:00

01:0

0-02

:00

02:0

0-03

:00

03:0

0-04

:00

04:0

0-05

:00

05:0

0-06

:00

06:0

0-07

:00

07:0

0-08

:00

08:0

0-09

:00

09:0

0-10

:00

10:0

0-11

:00

11:0

0-12

:00

12:0

0-13

:00

13:0

0-14

:00

14:0

0-15

:00

15:0

0-16

:00

16:0

0-17

:00

17:0

0-18

:00

18:0

0-19

:00

19:0

0-20

:00

20:0

0-21

:00

21:0

0-22

:00

22:0

0-23

:00

23:0

0-00

:00

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Figure 94 - EFOU quarterly movements

This is a low traffic airport with highest landing rates in Q4 and Q1. Taking into account ILS capability and tailwind statistics, there is an estimated 1,017 (21%) non-ILS landings per year.

P723D003* HELIOS 150 of 161

Q.6 Estimated cost savings





Table 101 – EFOU annual disruptions





Table 102 – EFOU annual benefits

There can be significant cost savings with the introduction of RNAV approach. Scenario 1 offers approximately €27,000 annual cost savings however Scenario 2 cost savings are more substantial at approximately €46,000 per year.

P723D003* HELIOS 151 of 161

R EFIV benefits analysis

R.1 Overview

This annex provides detailed analysis for Ivalo (EFIV) in Finland. This is a single runway airport with one ILS installation at runway end 220 degrees (EFIV22).


Figure 95 - EFIV airport chart


P723D003* HELIOS 152 of 161

Figure 96 - EFIV obstacle chart

R.2 Approach minima

The OCH for both current and MET estimated approach types are presented below. For the runway end EFIV04:

Ivalo – EFIV04

Current OCH (ft)


LNAV 670

NDB 670

Table 103 – EFIV04 OCH for current approaches

Ivalo – EFIV04



ILS CAT I 271 280 290 300

SBAS APVI 423 433 442 452

SBAS APVII 288 298 307 317

APV BaroVNAV 439

LNAV 623

Table 104 – EFIV04 OCH using MET tool

P723D003* HELIOS 153 of 161

The difference in LNAV minima here is largely due to the change in PANS-OPS design criteria which took place during the course of this study. The MET tool provides minima estimates based upon the old design criteria.


� APV BaroVNAV offers a significant reduction (230ft) over current minima;

� SBAS APVI offers significant reduction (220-250ft) over current minima;

� SBAS APVII offers significant reduction (250-390ft) over current minima;


For the runway end EFIV22:

Ivalo – EFIV22

Current OCH (ft)


ILS CAT I 172 184 196 210

LOC 560

LOC 560

NDB 750

Table 105 – EFIV22 OCH for current approaches

Ivalo – EFIV22



ILS CAT I 315 325 335 345

SBAS APVI 336 346 355 365

SBAS APVII 324 246 344 353

APV BaroVNAV 413

LNAV 462

Table 106 – EFIV222 OCH using MET tool


� APV BaroVNAV offers a significant reduction (140-320ft) over current minima;

� SBAS APV I/II offers significant reduction (200-390ft) over current minima.


R.3 Runway usage


P723D003* HELIOS 154 of 161

-10.00

-8.00

-6.00

-4.00

-2.00

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

00:0

0-01

:00

01:0

0-02

:00

02:0

0-03

:00

03:0

0-04

:00

04:0

0-05

:00

05:0

0-06

:00

06:0

0-07

:00

07:0

0-08

:00

08:0

0-09

:00

09:0

0-10

:00

10:0

0-11

:00

11:0

0-12

:00

12:0

0-13

:00

13:0

0-14

:00

14:0

0-15

:00

15:0

0-16

:00

16:0

0-17

:00

17:0

0-18

:00

18:0

0-19

:00

19:0

0-20

:00

20:0

0-21

:00

21:0

0-22

:00

22:0

0-23

:00

23:0

0-00

:00

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Figure 97 – EFIV04 average tailwind strength

-10.00

-8.00

-6.00

-4.00

-2.00

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

00:0

0-01

:00

01:0

0-02

:00

02:0

0-03

:00

03:0

0-04

:00

04:0

0-05

:00

05:0

0-06

:00

06:0

0-07

:00

07:0

0-08

:00

08:0

0-09

:00

09:0

0-10

:00

10:0

0-11

:00

11:0

0-12

:00

12:0

0-13

:00

13:0

0-14

:00

14:0

0-15

:00

15:0

0-16

:00

16:0

0-17

:00

17:0

0-18

:00

18:0

0-19

:00

19:0

0-20

:00

20:0

0-21

:00

21:0

0-22

:00

22:0

0-23

:00

23:0

0-00

:00

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Figure 98 – EFIV22 average tailwind strength

The preference based on this will be to use the EFIV22 runway end for all quarters. This is in line with the ILS capability of the runway. Therefore EFIV22 is selected as the default operational runway end for the benefits analysis.

R.4 Airport accessibility gain

The airport accessibility gain per quarter for EFIV22 is shown below.

P723D003* HELIOS 155 of 161

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

NDBVOR

LOC

LNAV

ILSCATI

ILSCATII

LNAV

BaroVNAV

SBASAPVI_A

SBASAPVII_A

SBASAPVI_B

SBASAPVII_B

SBASAPVI_C

SBASAPVII_C

SBASAPVI_D

SBASAPVII_D

Approach type

Dis

rupt

ion

hour

s

Q4

Q3

Q2

Q1

Figure 99 - EFIV22 - disruption hours

SBAS APV I/II demonstrates a significant potential gain in airport capacity of approximately 500 hours when compared to current NPAs. APV BaroVNAV offers approximately 300 additional undisrupted hours when compared to current NPAs.

The airport accessibility gain per quarter for EFIV04 is shown below.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

NDBVOR

LOC

LNAV

ILSCATI

ILSCATII

LNAV

BaroVNAV

SBASAPVI_A

SBASAPVII_A

SBASAPVI_B

SBASAPVII_B

SBASAPVI_C

SBASAPVII_C

SBASAPVI_D

SBASAPVII_D

Approach type

Dis

rupt

ion

hour

s

Q4

Q3

Q2

Q1

Figure 100 - EFIV04 disruption hours

A similar trend is observed however the potential gain is a lot more dependant upon the aircraft category for SBAS APV I/II.

P723D003* HELIOS 156 of 161

R.5 Aircraft landings


0.00

50.00

100.00

150.00

200.00

250.00

00:00

-01:

00

01:00

-02:

00

02:00

-03:

00

03:00

-04:

00

04:00

-05:

00

05:00

-06:

00

06:00

-07:

00

07:00

-08:

00

08:00

-09:

00

09:00

-10:

00

10:00

-11:

00

11:00

-12:

00

12:00

-13:

00

13:00

-14:

00

14:00

-15:

00

15:00

-16:

00

16:00

-17:

00

17:00

-18:

00

18:00

-19:

00

19:00

-20:

00

20:00

-21:

00

21:00

-22:

00

22:00

-23:

00

23:00

-00:

00

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Figure 101 - EFIV quarterly movements

This is a low traffic airport with no landings recorded in Q4. Taking into account ILS capability and tailwind statistics, there is an estimated 61 (13%) non-ILS landings per year.

R.6 Estimated cost savings

The estimated annual aircraft disruptions and corresponding cost for EFIV are presented below.




Table 107 – EFIV annual disruptions





Table 108 – EFIV annual benefits

There is a low level of benefit with the implementation of RNAV approach for both scenarios.

P723D003* HELIOS 157 of 161

S EHAM benefits analysis

S.1 Overview

This annex provides results of the MET tool analysis for Schiphol airport (EHAM) in Amsterdam. The required input data was received too late to perform a benefits analysis.

Schiphol is a six runway airport with ILS installed at all runway ends.

Figure 102 - EHAM aerodrome chart

P723D003* HELIOS 158 of 161

It employs various runway configurations dependant upon the traffic distribution, noise regulations and local wind conditions. These configurations are illustrated below.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Figure 103 – EHAM noise preferential runway configu ration system

Typically, combinations with preference 1, 2 or 3 account for close to 90% of arrivals peak times during the year9. Therefore the analysis focuses upon the runway ends 60, 180C and 180R as these serve the vast majority of arriving aircraft

S.2 Approach minima

The OCH for both current and MET estimated approach types for these runways are presented below.

9 ‘Second opinion on the application of CDAs at Schiphol airport – Final report’, 8th September 2008

P723D003* HELIOS 159 of 161

For the runway end EHAM06

Schiphol – EHAM06

Current OCH (ft)


ILS CAT I 141 151 163 177

LOC 410

NDB/DME 580

Table 109 - EHAM06 OCH for current approaches

Schiphol – EHAM06



ILS CAT I 558 568 578 588

SBAS APVI 598 608 618 628

SBAS APVII 567 577 586 596

APV BaroVNAV 746

LNAV 831

Table 110 - EHAM06 OCH using MET tool

All APVs will for this runway end will have a 250ft minimum decision height (PA capable). In summary:

� APV BaroVNAV offers no reduction over current NPA minima;

� SBAS APV I/II offers no reduction over current NPA minima with the exception of category A and B aircraft.


For the runway end EHAM18C

Schiphol – EHAM18C

Current OCH (ft)


ILS CAT I 149 158 168 179

LOC 380

NDB/DME 630

Table 111 – EHAM18C OCH for current approaches

P723D003* HELIOS 160 of 161

Schiphol – EHAM18C



ILS CAT I 303 313 323 333

SBAS APVI 303 313 323 333

SBAS APVII 303 313 323 333

APV BaroVNAV 645

LNAV 645

Table 112 – EHAM18C OCH using MET tool


� APV BaroVNAV offers no reduction over current NPA minima;

� SBAS APV I/II offers significant reduction (50-330ft) over current NPA minima.


For the runway end EHAM18R

Schiphol – EHAM18R

Current OCH (ft)


ILS CAT I 143 153 163 175

LOC 350

VOR/DME 470

Table 113 – EHAM18R OCH for current approaches

Schiphol – EHAM18R



ILS CAT I 303 313 322 332

SBAS APVI 343 353 363 372

SBAS APVII 311 321 331 341

APV BaroVNAV 394

LNAV 478

Table 114 – EHAM18R OCH using MET tool


� APV BaroVNAV offers some reduction (0-80ft) over current NPA minima;

P723D003* HELIOS 161 of 161

� SBAS APV I/II offers some reduction (0-160ft) over current NPA minima with the exception of category A and B aircraft.


Approaches on all these runways may be executed simultaneously and so an even share of arriving aircraft could be assumed between the three.

P723D003 Business Case Final Report v2.1

Documents

Transcript of P723D003 Business Case Final Report v2.1